*<%■ 
li 


v.    v/.J 


.¥ 


:»'^ 


^•;-   ^z 


f*4'"S*|.: 


•«ac. 


,rk. 


1 

a^ 

«j 

^ 

a. 

,^ 

. 

,•? 

<^ 

'.  ; 

4Xi» 

, 

— 

►-9 

ol 

xi^ 

♦  tm^ 

• 

*-*• 

«=5 

iz; 

O 

1 

Ci 

> 

^^^ 

^ 

> 

O 

!Z 

c 

ETO] 

el  Ag 

^ 

o 

3 

^ 

■o 

15 

s 

(T3 

~; 

Pi 

Pt4 

1 

«► 

>% 

^ 

■o 

c 

0} 

s 

•^   • 

1 

^ 

/n/J 


cr 


open  Communion  with  all  who  keep 
the  Ordinances  as  Christ  delivered  them 


to  the  Saints, 


^z^r^' 


EIGHT    LETTERS 


OPEN    COMMUNION. 


ADDRESSED    TO 


RUFUS  ANDERSON,  A.  M. 


BY  DANIEL  MERRILL,  A.  M. 

PASTOR  or  THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST  IN   SEDGWICK, 


BOSTON  I 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  Cif  Loring,  No.  2, 
Cornhill.. 1805. 


Diftria  of  AlaJfuchufettSy  to  wit : 

JjE  it  remembered.  That  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of 
Auguft,  in  the  thirtieth  year  of  the  Independence  of  ihe  United  States 
of  America,  Ma  n  n  i  n  g  and  Lo  R  i  K  g,  of  the  faid  Diftri6l,  have 
dcpofned  in  this  Office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they 
claim  as  Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit  :  "  Open  Com- 
munion wi.h  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances  as  Chrill  delivered  them 

to  the  Sainis Eight  Tetters  on  Open  Communion,  addreffed  to 

Rl;  fus  Ani>erson',  A.  M.  By  Dak  iel  Merrill,  A.  M. 
I'aflor  of  the  Church  of  Chrifl  in  Sedgwick." 

In  conformity  to  the  Aft  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring 
the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors 
of  fuch  Copies,  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  alfo  to  an 
Aft,  entitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplementary  to  an  Aft,  entitled.  An  Aft 
for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  Copies  of  Maps, 
Charts  and  Books,  to  tiie  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  Copies, 
during  the  Times  therem  mentioned;  and  extending  the  Benefits 
Ujereof  to  the  Arts  of  Deligning,  Engraving  and  Etching  Hiftorlcal 
and  other  Prints." 

N.  GOODALE,  \  ^H\f9''Pf'^ 
'  (    of  Majjacnu/Ltls. 


%^k 


S^o  i/i6  fSn^iaaer. 


.S  to  the  fubje6t  of  the  following 
Letters,  either  the  Baptifts  or  their  oppo- 
nents are  in  an  error.  This  error  relates 
to  what  is,  or  to  what  is  not,  pre-requifite 
to  memberlhip  in  the  vifible  church. 

We  are  agreed,  or  ought  to  be,  after 
faying,  on  each  fide,  what  we  judge  to  the 
purpofe,  to  leave  it  with  you  to  determine 
for  yourfelf.  But  we  think  it  duty  to  re- 
mind you,  that  your  judgment  will  influ- 
ence your  prad;ice,  and  that  your  pradice 
will  be  examined,  and  the  confequences  of 
it  will  be  yours,  in  eternity. 

Two  things  we  wifh  you  to  believe.-— 
One  is,  That  /r/z/i?  v^^i]l  be  honourable^  when 
error  (hall  be  made  afnamcd.  The  other  is. 
That  truth  embraced  and  truth  pradifed  is 
the  road  to  heaven,  and  the  wifeil  cou-rfe 
on  earth. 


IV 


Reader,  we  do  not  afk  you  to  believe  us, 
we  wlfh  you  to  believe  the  truth.  We  afk 
you  to  read,  and  to  read  attentively  ;  to  read 
for  yourfelf.  We  wiili  you  to  'read  with 
that  candour,  that  refolution,  and  with  that 
application,  with  v\^hich  a  rational  creature 
fhould,  Vsdth  which  an  accountable  creature 
fhould,  and  with  v/hich  one  fhould,  who  is 
bound  to  an  everlafting  ftate. 

Should  you  be  afhamed  of  Chrift,  and  of 
his  words,  you  may  need  his  approbation, 
when  it  may  not  be  granted  you.  Wiihing 
you  grace,  wifdom  and  falvation, 

I  am.,  reader, 

your  willing  fervant 
for  the  truth's  fake. 

The  author. 


x^\'0.   ^ 


Letters  on  Open  Commuiiion. 


■■''*'^*«rr 


LETTER   L 


0/)«?/7  Communion  with  all  ivho  keep  the  Ordinances^ 
as  Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  Saints, 

BROTHER.    AtlD.'iRiON, 

XA-MiY  did  you  write  on  clofe  com- 
munion ?  Why  not  on  open  communion  ? 
Your  brethren,  the  Baptiils,  againfl  whoiTi  you 
write,  are  as  open  communionifts  as  are  found 
among  all  the  followers  of  the  Lamb.  Their 
communion  is  open  and  free  to  all  who  have 
refped  to  all  God's  commandments.  They 
begin  their  open  communion  where  Chritt's 
forerunner  began  it,  where  Ch rift's  difciples 
continued  it,  and  where  his  apoftles  every 
where  purfued  it.  Their  communion  is  as 
open,  free  and  liberal  to  all  vifible  believers,  as 
were  the  waters,  the  overflowino;  waters  of 
Jordan,  or  the  many  or  large  waters  of  En  on. 
Here  h  the  place  to  begin  vilible  communion 
with  that  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world. 
This  is  the  communion  door,  nine-tenths  of 
the   Paedobaptifts   and    Baptids   being  judges. 

A   2 


6  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

There  is  no  other  way  to  become  the  viliblc 
and  regular  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
Jefus  Chrift  being  judge.  John  iii.  5.  '  Except 
a  man  be  born  of  water, — he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kin£rdom  of  God.' 

Now,  my  dear  brother,  had  you  begun  where 
our  Lord,  his  herald  and  followers  bega.n,  you 
would  have  laid  the  axe  at  the  root  of  the  tree  ; 
and  might  have  been  confiftent  with  truth,  and 
deferved  well  of  the  church  of  our  Lord. 

Suppofe  a  vifible  union  among  the  friends 
of  Chrift,  and  their  mutual  fellowfliip  at  the 
Lord's  table,  be  as  defirable  as  you  conceive  it, 
why  then  not  fet  an  example  of  condefcenlion, 
and  urge  your  brethren  to  the  fame  ?  Do  not 
you  know,  and  do  not  the  B.iptifts,  that  your 
denomination,  who  teach  the  Baptifts  to  do 
the  things  which  make  for  peace,  and  the 
things  wherewith  one  may  edify  another,  are 
the  firft  to  tranfgrefs  the  rule  which  they  pre- 
fcribe  to  others  ?  Befides,  fuppofe  the  Baptifts 
violate  the  royal  law  of  love,  in  refufmg  to 
commune  with  you,  you  without  one  juftifia- 
ble  reafon  begin  this  violation  :  and  thus,  to 
fay  the  leaft,  afford  the  Baptifts  a  very  piaufible 
jultification  ;  and,  in  their  judgment,  oblige 
them  to  refufe  you  to  the  lecond  gofpel  or- 
dinance, by  your  refufmg  to  fubmit  to  the 
firft. 

You,  in  direcl  violation  of  all  the  commands 
of  Chrift  with  refpect  to  baptifm,  and  contrary 
from  all  the  precepts  and  practices  of  the  apof- 
tles  on  the  fubjecl,  refufe  communion  in  the 
firft  and  introductory  ordinance  of  baptifm. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  7 

Set  the  Baptifts  an  example  of  gofpel,  open, 
liberal  communion,  they  will  doubtlefs  follow. 

Moreover,  almoft  all  the  Paedobaptifls  con- 
demn your  theory  of  open  communion  with 
unbaptized  believers.  The  Psedobaptifts  are 
nearly,  if  not  altogether,  as  much  clofe  com- 
munionifts  as  are  the  Baptifts ;  yes,  if  I  miflake 
not,  they  are  more  univerfatly  fo,  for  fome 
Baptifts  will  commune  with  profeffed  believers 
who  are  not  baptized,  but  I  recollect  not  of  fo 
much  as  one  inftance,  in  which  a  Pzedobaptift 
confented  to  commune  with  one  not  baptized. 

You  will  further  obferve,  it  is  totally  incon- 
fiftent  with  the  Psedobaptift  fentiments  to 
commune  at  the  Lord's  ta*ble  before  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm  be  adminiftered.  '  No  uncir- 
cumciled  perfon  fhall  eat  thereof,'*  is  a  text 
which  they  coniider  of  no  fmall  weight  in  this 
matter. 

It  is  at  once  granted,  that  fome  of  your  de- 
nomination, and  men  of  literature,  talents  and 
piety  too,  are  fo  dcfirous  of  union  at  the  Lord's 
table,  that  they  would  difpenfe  with  the  law  of 
Mofes,  which  the  Psedobaptifts,  in  this  particu- 
lar, ftand  upon,  and  the  law  of  Chrift,  to  which 
the  Baptifts  adhere. 

I  confefs,  my  dear  Sir,  you  appear  to  me 
fomewhat  out  of  order^  whilft  you  ftand,  as 
you  fuppofe,  upon  the  Paedobaptift  ground, 
Vv'hen  you  can  fhow  no  title  to  it,  and  there 
fomewhat  earneftly  contend  with  the  Baptifts 
for  praclifing  as  the  Psedobaptiits  have,  if  I 
miftake  not,  generally,  if  not  univerfally  done. 

*  Exod.  xii.  48. 


8  Letters  on  Open  CGmmimlon, 

The  Pscdobaptifts  err,  in  that  they  admit  to 
baptifm  improper  fubjecls,  as  readily  as  they 
do  thofe  who  have  golpel  qualifications.  But 
your  denomination  have  reje<5led  baptifin  itfelf. 
You  have,  to  fpeak  plain  truth,  nothing  left  of 
it,  fave  the  name. 

You  muft,  Sir,  change  your  practice  before 
your  arguments,  fuppofing  them  concluliveibr 
the  Predobaptifts,  can  have  the  force  you  wifti 
them,  in  drawing  the  Baptifts  to  open  their 
doors  to  you. 

The  Baptifts  do  not,  to  my  knowledge,  claim 
infallibility,  as  you  intimate  ;  but  they  confider 
the  Scriptures  to  be  fo.  From  which  they 
have  this  information,  that  the  period  hath 
arrived,  in  which  the  way  oi  hoUncfs  fhould  be 
fo  plain,  that  the  way-faring  man,  though  a  fool, 
vnlearmd^  (hould  not  err  therein  ;  yet  the  man 
oi  learning,  talents  and  piety,  and  all  who  fol- 
low him,  may  err  ;  and  do,  fo  far  as  they  think 
to  mend  the  fimplicity  of  the  gofpel,  by  fubfti- 
tuting  the  inventions  of  men  for  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord, 

In  this  letter  we  have  introduced  the  fubject 
fomewhat  abruptly,  and  not  quite  explicitly 
enough  for  every  capacity  ;  but  you.  Sir,  can 
tinderftand  it ;  and  in  the  following  letters,  we 
hope  to  handle  the  fubje(5t  with  fo  much  can- 
dour, clearnefs,  preciuon  and  evidence,  that  the 
weakeft  mind  may  underlland,  and  receive 
conviction  of  what  is  truth.  Should  you  be 
amongft  the  convinced,  the  triumph  of  truth 
will  be  to  you  more  precious  than  rubies  j  and 
very  grateful  to  /jim,  who  is 

Your's  with  affedion. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion. 


LETTER  II. 

Open  Communion  with  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances 
as  Chriji  delivered  them  to  the  Saints. 

BROTHER    ANDERSOK, 

OINCE  I  have  taken  in  hand  to  fet  in 
order  fome  things,  you  will  give  me  liberty  to 
redify  iniftakcs^and  to  define  matters  minutely. 

It  gives  me  pain  to  rectify  you,  where  the 
rectification  will  give  you  one  unpleafant  feel- 
ing. But  every  thing  which  obftructs  the 
progrefs  of  truth  muft  give  way.  You  fup- 
pofe,  dear  Sir,  that  the  Baptifts  were  very  little 
heard  of  till  after  Luther  arofe.  Here  you 
miftake,  for  they  were,  according  to  the  hif- 
tory  of  the  Church,  the  principal,  if  not  the 
only  ones,  who,  for  time  immemorial,  or  up 
to  the  a^oft'olic  age,  held  and  defended  the 
great  and  foundation  doctrines  of  grace.  Be- 
fides,  Sir,  you  have  made  a  miftake  in  whole, 
in  another  particular.  The  Baptifts,  as  to  the 
article  of  baptifm,  which  is  the  principal,  or 
one  principal  thing,  which  occafions  what  is 
termed  clofe  communion,  have  been  as  general 
and  univerfal,  all  over  Chriftendom,  as  you 
have  reprefented  them  fcarce  and  lingular.  I 
do  not  find  one  profeffing  Chriftian,  for  eleven 
hundred  years  after  Chrift,  if  not  fifteen  hun- 
dred, but  was  a  Baptift  in  fentiment,  and  fo  in 
practice,  fjme  extreme  cafes  excepted. 

Luther,  Melanclhon  and  Calvin,  if  not  all 
the  great  reformers,  were,  from  the  moft  cor- 


lo  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

Ytdi  information  obtained,  fentimentally  Bap- 
tifts,  as  to  the  adminiftration  of  that  previous, 
diftinguifhing,  Hgnificant  ordinance.  They, 
difigreed  with  the  primitive  Baptifts,  as  to  the 
fubjefts.  They  were  alfo  too  much  for  accom- 
modating, as  to  the  primitive  and  fcrip.ture 
practice. 

On  account  of  their  difagreement  as  to  the 
fubjecls,  they  and  a  multitude  before  them  and 
lince,  took  the  name  of  Psedobaptifts.  Now, 
Sir,  were  you  and  others^  who,  in  the  prefent 
day,  fay  fo  many  hard  things  againft  the  Bap- 
tilts,  Padobapti/is  ;  that  is,  Did  you  baptize,  or 
were  you  baptized  at  all,  you  would  have  a 
more  plauiible  ground  on  which  to  meet  the 
Baptifts  in  this  controverfy. 

I  muft  now,  to  clear  the  ground,  that  we 
may  have  a  field  view  of  the  fubject,  do^what 
I  would  not,  did  not  the  caufe  n^nifeftly  re- 
quire it.  I  muft  define  your  denomination, 
,and  trace  its  rife.  If  my  definition  be  juft,  be 
clear,  be  accurate,  comprehending  neither  too 
much  nor  too  little,  if  it  have  nat  one  unkind 
word  in  it,  you  cannot  in  reafon  take  umbrage 
at  it,  and  I  deiire  you  would  not. 

The  definition  which  belongs  to  your  de- 
nomination, and  which  gives  its  peculiar  dif- 
tinftion  from  all  others,  and  by  which  you 
ought  willingly  to  be  known,  in  the  clofe 
communion  controverfy,  is  Pcedorantijls. 

The  rife  of  your  denomination  was  among 
the  Ciinicks,  or  fick  people,  of  ancient  date. 
Thefe  were  judged  unable  to  receive  baptifm, 
and  yet  the  erring  adminiftrators,  fuppofing 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  i  x 

baptifm  elTential  to  falvation,  concluded,  to  fave 
the  fouls  of  fick  perfons,  to  change  immcriion 
into  fprinkling,  and  ftill  (in  violation  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  of  language,  if  not  of  common  fenfc) 
to  call  it  bapiifni.  This  practice  was  in  its  in- 
fancy, as  you  fuppole  the  Baptills  to  have  been, 
till  alter  the  reformation  under  Luther,  Calvin, 
and  others. 

Years  after  the  Reformation  commenced, 
fome  focieties  began  to  think  fprinkling  not  a 
fubftitute,.  but  Scripture  baptifm.*  Now  your 
denomination,  ftrictly  fpeaking,  took  its  rife. 
Inflead  of  fprinkling  from  neceflity,  you  now 
began  to  fprinkle  fentimentaliy.  Yet,  the  moft 
learned,  if  not  the  moft  pious,  of  your  denomi- 
nation, have  in  every  age  confejQTed,  that  your 
practice  was  not  apoftolical,  or  that  the  practice 
of  the  apoftles  was  immerfion.  My  dear  Sir, 
you  fee  the  ftrait  to  which  I  am  driven  ;  I  am 
compelled  to  expofe  your  anti-evangelical  prac- 
tice, in  order  to  juftify  the  innocent,  whom 
you  condemn. 

Now,  fliould  I  grant  you  all  which  you  claim 
in  your  fecond  letter,  for  the  P?sclobaptifts,  yet 
you  have  little  pretenlions  to  the  honour  which 
you  there  attribute  to  them.  For  you  are 
not  of  that  denomination,  nor  do  I  know  of 
many  in  America  who  are.  The  Greek 
Church  are,  the  Church  of  England  are  pro- 
feiledly  fo,  but  not  praftically.  Some,  if  not 
all  the  old  reformers  in  Europe,  of  whom  you 
fay  fo  many  good  things,  were.     Theie,  there- 

*  There  might  be  fome  among  the  Papifls  who  were  of  this  opinioa 
before. 


1 2  Letters  on  Open  Ccnwiunion. 

fore,  belonged  to  the  vifible  Church  of  Chrifl:, 
according  to  the  general  fentiment,  if  I  miftake 
not,  of  Baptifts  and  P^edobaptifts,  in  the  dif- 
ferent ages  of  Chriftianity. 

Hence  you  cannot  but  fee,  fhould  your  ar- 
o-uments  and  conclufion  be  allowed  in  their 
full  force,  yet  it  would  not  follow,  as  you 
doubtlefs  expected  it  would,  that  your  denom- 
ination had  been  blefTed  above  the  Baptifts  ; 
or  that  your  denomination  were  vifible  mem- 
bers of  that  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world  ; 
or  that  it  would  be  in  gofpel  order  to  admit 
you  to  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

In  your  firft  letter  is  found  this  important 
proportion  :  "  It  is  doubtlefs  by  a  doctrinal 
and  practical  manifeftation  of  the  truth,  that 
the  church  becomes  its  pillar  and  ground." 

The  following  is  a  fair  and  plain  confe- 
quence.  Your  denomination  is  not  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth,  with  refpe(5l  to  bap- 
tifm,  for  you  have  neither  doctrinal  nor  pra(5ti- 
cal  manifeftation  of  it ;  you  neither  in  doctrine 
nor  practice  give  either  faint  or  finner  one  idea 
of  baptifm  ;  you  have  the  name,  but  renounce 
the  thing  j  you  have  not  even  the  fhadovv. 

In  my  next  I  propofe  to  define  matters  more 
fully,  and  to  mention  fome  evidence  for  what 
is  alTerted  in  this.  Wiftiing  you  as  much  wif- 
dom  and  candour  as  I  need  for  myfelf, 

I  am  your's.  * 


Letters  on  Open  Co?nmunm,  13 


LETTER   III. 

Open  Communion  with  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances 
as  Chriji  delivered  the  in  to  the  Saints, 

MY    DEAR    SIR, 

I  HERE  prefent  you  with  a  few  fub' 
ie6ls  defined ;  for  I  would  fay  nothing  in  the 
dark,  but  every  thing  as  plainly  as  I  can. 

DEFINITIONS. 

I.  A  Baptift  is  one  who  holds  immerfion. 
only  to  be  baptifm,  and  vifible  believers  the 
only  fubjefts. 

1.  A  Paedobaptift  is  one  who  holds  immer- 
fion only  to  be  baptifm,  and  believeri^,  with 
their  unbelieving  houfeholds,  to  be  the  labjecls. 

3.  A  Psedorantift  is  one  who  holds  fiyrinkling 
to  be  baptifm^  and  believers,  with  their  unbe- 
lieving houfeholds,  to  be  the  fubje<5ts. 

4.  The  vilible  church  of  Chriit,  fpeaking 
generally,  comprifes  every  individual  pcrfon, 
and  every  fociety  of  profeffing  believers,  who 
have  been  baptized. 

5.  A  particular,  vifible,  church  of  Chrift,  is 
a  fociety  of  perfons  who  profefs  to  believe  in 
him,  and  have  been  baptized. 

6.  The  invihble  church  of  Chrift  includes 
every  individual  who  is  born  of  Chriil's  Spirit, 
as  well  thofe  without  the  vifible  church  as  thofe 
within. 

7.  To  be  born  of  Chrift's  Spirit,  forms  the 
perfed  though  invifible  line  of  diftindioa  be=- 


14-  Letters  on  Open  Commimion* 

tween  the  invifible  church  and  the  world  of 
unbelievers. 

8.  The  being  born  of  water,  or  baptifm,  is 
the  perfect  and  vifible  line  of  reparation  be- 
tween the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift  and  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world. 

From  the  two  laft  definitions  it  is  eafily  feen 
that  many  true  believers  in  Chrift  may  not 
belong  to  his  vifible  kingdom,  and  that  many 
hypocrites  may  be  members  of  it. 

As  to  the  diffe»ent  denominations  of  Chrif- 
tians,  mentioned  in  the  three  firft  definitions, 
it  may  be  for  your  profit  to  obferve, 

The  Baptifts  have  been  uniform  in  their 
fentiment  and  practice  from  the  apoftles*  day 
to  our's. 

The  Pxdobaptifls  have  been  uniform  in  their 
fentiment,  and  practice  too,  as  to  what  baptifm 
is,  fome  extreme  cafes  excepted,  however  they 
may,  at  different  periods,  have  varied  from 
themfelves,  as  to  the  fubjects  of  it. 

The  Pasdorantifts  have  been  almoft  perpetu- 
ally different  from  each  other,  in  both  their 
fentiments  and  practice,  as  to  what  baptifm  is, 
and  vv'ho  are  the  fubjects  ;  or  we  muft  confider 
them  as  different  feels,  with  flight  fliades  of 
difagrreement. 

Thofe  whom  I  include  under  the  common 
name  of  Psedorantifts,  are  the  denomination 
or  denominations  of  Chriflians  who  fjprinkle, 
partially  wafh,  or  pour  on  water,  and  call  it 
baptizing  the  man.  The  name,  Paedorantifls, 
belongs,  flriotly  fpeaking,  to  none  but  to  thofe 
who  fprinkle  and  call  it  l?aptif7n*     But  as  thofe 


Lelten  ori  Open  Cojumunion.  15 

who  pour  on  water,  or  wafh  a  part  of  the  face, 
for  baptifm,  have  nothing  left  but  the  name, 
in  their  fuppofed  adminillration  cf  that  ordi- 
nance, we  fhall  do  them  no  injuftice  to  cLifs 
them  with  thofe  who  fprinkle,  and  call  them 
by  one  common  name,  though  the  term,  P^edo- 
ran tills,  fignifies  fuch  as  fprinkle  only. 

We  have  now  fet  off  to  your  denomination 
all  to  whom  you  can  make  any  juft  pretenfion. 
Yet  there  is  not  one  among  you,  who  has  il) 
much  as  the  fhadovv  of  baptifm,  when  it  is 
profelTedly  adminiftered. 

Thofe  who  lirft  introduced  your  practke, 
did  not  believe  it  from  heaven,  or,  at  leaft,  we 
.have  no  intimation  that  they  did ;  nor  did 
they  allow  the  practice,  but  as  imperious  necef- 
fity,  as  they  fuppofed,  compelledr 

The  men  of  piety,  talents  and  erudition  of 
your  own  denomination  would  never  have 
fuppofed,  that  bapti-zb  and  bapiifmos,  in  the  7th 
of  Mark  and  1  ith  of  Luke,  favoured  their 
practice,  had  they  not  been  uncom.fortably 
prelTed  to  fupport  a  fentiment,  which  they  had 
adopted  without  fufficient  precaution.  Thefe 
paffages  in  Mark  and  Luke  inform  us,  that  the 
Pharifees  and  all  the  Jews,  ex-rept  they  wafli 
their  hands  with  ceremonial  or  traditional  ex- 
aclnefs,  eat  not ;  and  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  or  from  a  promifcuous  concourfe 
of  people,  they  eat  not,  except  they  immerfe 
themfelves,  or  are  baptized.  What  is  here  faid 
of  their  waihing  their  hands  hath  nothing  to 
do  with  baptifm,  in  any  way  j  but  where  bao- 
tifm   is   mentioned,   the   fame   application   of 


'1*6  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

water  as  is  enjoined  in  the  gofpel  ordinance  of 
baptifnn,  is  manifeftly  intended. 

We  will  not  accufe  your  denomination  with 
deficiency  in  talents  or  literature  ;  but  if  they 
furpafs  the  Baptifts  "  an  hundred,  not  to  fay  a 
thoufand,  fold,"  it  appears  a  little  ftrange,  that 
they  fhould  not  have  been  acquainted  with  a 
very  iingular  fuperftition  among  the  Jews, 
which,  had  they  known  it,  might  have  faved 
them  feveral  miftakes,  and  would  have  wholly 
fpoiled  their  application  of  the  above  texts. 
In  what  author,  whether  in  Jofephus*s  Anti- 
quities, or  in  fome  other,  I  cannot  now.fay» 
feveral  years  having  elapfed  fince  I  obtained 
the  information  ;  but  the  fuperftitious  cuftom, 
and  fome  of  the  reafons  for  it,  I  have  fome  what 
frefli  in  my  memory.  Their  cuftom  was,  when 
they  came  from  the  market,  or  from  a  prornif- 
cuous  con(  ourfe,  "  not  to  eat  till  they  had 
bathed  their  bodies  all  over  in  water."  Their 
reafons  for  it,  according  to  my  beft  recolledlion, 
were  two. 

1.  At  the  market,  where  all  kinds  of  meat 
and  other  articles  were  for  fale,  fome  might  be 
unclean  ;  and  in  the  rrsarket,  and  other  places 
of  public  cona>urfe,  there  might  be  heathens. 
In  thefe  circumftances,  the  Jews  fuppofed  fome 
part  of  their  bodies  or  clothes  might  touch 
fome  unclean  thing,  or  heathen  man,  and  of 
courfe  be  defiled. 

2.  Thefe  fuperftitious  Jews  knew  not  on 
what  part  of  their  bodies  or  clothes  the  defile- 
ment might  reft;  j  hence,  to  be  fure  that  they 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  17 

ate  not  with  defiled  bodies  or  garments,  tJhey 
baptized  themfelves,  or  bathed  in  every  part. 

In  my  feven  Sermons,  I  have  fhewecj^  that 
the  wafhings,  baptifms,  of  pots  and  cups,  brazen 
veffels  and  tables,  are  diredly  in  favour  of  the 
Baptifts.  It  is  alfo  there  proved,  that  the 
fprinklings  mentioned  in  the  9th  of  Hebrews, 
fay  nothing  in  favour  of  your  denomination. 

My  dear  Sir,  the  truth  is,  you  have  no  text, 
inference,  or  juil  implication,  in  any  part  of 
the  Bible,  to  fupport  the  practice  of  your  de- 
nomination. But  while  I  condemn  your  un- 
fcriptural,  anti-evangelical  and  traditionary 
pradice  of  fprinkling,  you  will  dome  the  juf- 
tice  to  believe,  that  I  do  not  condemn  you  in 
every  thing,  or  fet  you  at  naught  as  men,  or 
as  Chriftians.  I  feel  a  willingnefs  to  allow  you- 
every  good  thing  which  your  denomination 
can  juftly  claim,  as  you  may  the  more  fully 
difcover  by  peruling  fome  of  the  following, 
letters. 

Wiftiing  you  every  needed  blefling,  through 
the  grace  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jefus  Chriitj, 
I  am  your's. 


B  2 


1 8  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

LETTER   IV. 


BEAR    SIR, 


1  HE  fubje<ft  of  this  letter  is  an  invef- 
tigation  of  the  ground  on  which  you  make 
fuch  heavy  demands  upon  the  Baptifts,  for 
ahnoft  unbounded  concedions  in  favour  of 
your  denomination. 

We  wifh  to  treat  you  and  your  denomina- 
tion with  all  the  candour  which  you  can  wi(h  ; 
yet  candour  itfelf  will  not  require  that  we  give 
you  more  than  is  your  due  :  and  as  you  have 
not  quite  fufiiciently  defined  matters,  we  nmft 
be  a  little  careful  to  do  it,  that  we  give  you  not 
too  much. 

In  your  letters  you  have  plead  the  caufc  of 
the  Pccdobaptiils  aimoft  equally  with  that  of 
your  own  denomination,  or  rather  you  have 
conlidercd  their's  and  your's  to  be  one,  and 
have  plead  the  caufe  generally  ;  whereas  there 
is  a  difference  as  diftinguifliing,  if  not  one  of 
equal  importance,  between  your  denomination 
and  the  Psedobaptifts,  as  between  tliem  and  the 
Baptifis.  In  my  Sermons  this  diuinclion  was 
not  mentioned,  it  did  not  appear  neceffary  for 
the  object  then  in  view  j  but  now  a  clear  dif- 
tinftion  is  not  only  neceffary  to  be  made,  but 
to  be  kept  in  fight.  For  by  your  combining 
the  two  denominations  together,  and  claiming 
from  the  Baptifts,  and  for  yourfelves,  full  credit 
for  all  the  numbers,  talents,  character  and  piety 
of  both,  and  at  the  fame  time,  by  charging  the 
practice  of  the  Baptifts  towards  your  denomi- 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  19 

nation,  as  being  equally  againft  that  of  the 
Paedobaptifts,  you  take  too  much  credit  for 
yourfelves,  and  allow  them  not  quite  enough. 

We  fliall  now  (late  the  matter  as  the  hiftory 
of  the  church  gives  it,  and  as  you  cannot  con- 
tradi<5l  it. 

During  the  firft  century,  the  Chriflians  were 
all  regular  Baptifts. 

During  the  whole,  or  the  greater  part,  of  the 
fccond  century,  they  were,  for  aught  appears, 
the  fame.* 

In  the  third  century  the  Baptifts  were  large- 
ly divided  into  regular  and  irregular  Baptifts, 
or  into  Baptifts  and  Psedobaptifts.  In  this  cen- 
tury the  Paedobaptifts  became  very  numerous, 
efpecially  in  Africa,  if  not  in  every  Chriftian 
country.  Origen  came  forward  in  this  cen- 
tury, with  a  tradition^  which  he  faid  was  from 
the  apoftles,  "  to  give  baptifm  to  infants." 
This  tradition  probably  had  its  full  effect  upon 
the  church,  already  greatly  deviating  from  the 
fimplicity  of  the  gofpel,  and  laying  an  undue 
influence  upon  externals,  and  alfo  believing  that 
baptifm  was  eftential  to  falvation. 

From  this  period,  and  onwards  for  tv/elve 
hundred  years,  the  Baptifts  were  a  little  defpifed 
fiock.  The  Paedobaptifts  were  very  numerou"^, 
both  in  the  Greek  and  Roman  churches. 

"When  the  conteft  between  the  Romanifts 
and  Luther   and   his  affociates  firft  drew  the 

*  In  my  Sermons  I  quoted  from  Prefident  Dickenfon,  where  he 
introduced  Irenaeus,  fpeaking  thus,  *'The  church  received  a  tradition 
from  the  apoftles,  to  admimfler  baptifm  to  little  chiidren,  or  infants." 
From  recent  inforraaiion,  I  undcrfland  this  quotation  is  fpurious,  not 
being  found  in  any  of  the  writings  of  Iren'£us.  Dr.  Gill's  anfwer. 
Hcmmenway  on  Infaat  Baptifm. 


20  Letters  on  T)pen  Communion. 

attention  of  the  world,  the  Baptifts  came  out 
of  their  hiding  places  j  perhaps  their  twelve 
hundred  and  fixty  years,  in  which  God  promif- 
ed  to  nourifh  them  in  the  wildernefs,  began 
then  to  expire :  but  as  their  perfecution  came 
on  by  degrees,  fo  their  liberty  muft  come  for- 
ward gradually,  and  certainly  it  is  not  yet 
completed. 

During  this  long  period,  and  through  all 
thefe  commotions.,  we  find  all,  or  nearly  all, 
fentimentally  united  as  to  the  adminiftration 
of  baptifm.  On  the  fit  fubjecls,  the  Ba'ptifts 
and  Pscdobaptifts  greatly  difagreed. 

As  to  your  denomination,  we  find  fcarcely  a 
fentimental  trace.  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  on 
water,  was,  under  particular  circumfi:ances, 
permitted. 

In  the  year  1539,  John  Calvin,  the  famous 
Genevan  reformer,  undertook,  and,  if  I  mifiake 
not,  for  the  firil  time  it  was  ever  undertaken, 
to  fupport  the  pra6tice  of  your  denomination, 
as  being  not  contrary  from  Scripture,  though 
contrary  from  the  practice  of  the  apoftles,  and 
the  plain  determinate  meaning  of  the  command, 
as  given  by  the  Saviour  in  the  inftitution.* 

How  Calvin  could  juftify  himfelf  to  himfelf, 
or  to  the  command  of  Chrift,  and  to  the  cor- 
refponding  practice  of  the  apoftles,  is  not  the 
point  at  prefent  to  be  difcufTed.  What  we 
wifh  for,  is  to  find  your  denomination. 

You  probably  fuppofe,  that  from  this  period 
all  believed  in  fprinkling,  pouring,  or  partial 
wafhing,  for  baptifm  j  but  fads  prove  it  other- 
wife. 

*  Calvin's  Inf.  Book  IV.  Chap.  xv.  Sec.  19. 


Letters  on  Open  Comnunicn,  21 

The  Greek  Church,  which,  perhaps,  com- 
prifes  nearly  or  quite  one-third  of  all  profeffing 
Chriilians,  and  they  are  fuppoied  to  underftand 
the  import  of  the  Greek  language  as  well  as 
any  other  portion  of  Chriilians,  do  not  come 
into  your  denonnination. 

The  Church  of  England  do  not  fentimental- 
ly  or  profeiTedly,  however  they  may  in  practice. 
In  their  Rubrick  on  baptihn,  after  pointing 
out  feveral  particulars,  which -are  to  attend  the 
adminiftration  of  baptifm  to  infants,  it  fays 
thus, — 

**  Then  the  prieft  fhall  take  the  child  in  his 
hands,  and  ailc  the  name,  naming  the  child, 
fliall  dip  it  in  the  water,  fo  it  be  dilcreetly  and 
warily  done,  faying, — N.  I  baptize  thee  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghoil.  And  if  the  child  be  weak,  it 
Ihall  fuffice  to  pour  water  upon  it,  faying  the 
aforefaid  words, — ^I  baptize  thee  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  &c."* 

How  many  of  the  Lutherans  of  Norway, 
Denmark,  Sweden,  ancient  Poland,  Pruilia,  or 
of  the  petty  States  of  Germany,  you  will  claim, 
I  will  not  prefume  to  fay ;  but  from  the  fenti- 
ments  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  I  queftion 
whether  you  can  juftly  lay  claim  to  a  large 
portitm  of  them,  as  fentimental  Psedorantifts. 

The  Bapiifts  of  every  country  are  confelT- 
cdly  not  of  your  denomination. 

One  point  we  will  readily  grant,  that  in  our 
own  nation  are  found  a  large  number  of  pious, 
learned  and  able  men,  whom  you  may  juftly 
challenge,  as  being  fentimentally  Pasdorantiils^ 

*  Latin  Bible,  printed  in- London  1639. 


11  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

It  belongs  to  you.  Sir,  would  you  fully  make 
your  pretenfions  good,  to  inform  the  public, 
where  they  may  fmd  a  much  larger  number 
of  men  of  talents,  piety,  character  and  learn- 
ing, of  your  denomination,  than  you  will,  per- 
haps, be  able  readily  to  do  ;  if  you  can  do  this, 
you  certainly  ought,  for  otherwife  you  may 
lay  under  fome  not  very  agreeable  imputations. 
We  excufe  you  in  part,  on  account  of  your 
miftaking  the  Pccdobaptiilis  and  your  denomi- 
nation to  be  one. 

You  cannot  take  it  unkindly  to  have  one 
flip,  at  leaft,  of  your  pen  corrected.  In  your 
lift  of  worthies  which  you  mention,  that  the 
Baptifts  might  feel  their  own  comparative  fmall- 
nefs,  you,  for  want  of  accurate  information  or 
corredt  attention,  place  John  Bunyan,  a  noted 
and  celebrated  Baptift,  at  the  head. 

Should  you  ever  write  againft  the  Baptifts 
in  future,  you  will  certainly  run  your  account 
much  lower,  or  give  more  facts  and  take  kfs 
for  granted,  or  elfe  not  take  it  unkindly  ftiould 
your  demands  be  re-examined.  You  fay,  page 
14,  "  The  light  of  truth  has  been  an  hundred, 
perhaps  a  thoufand,  fold  greater  in  the  Paedo- 
baptiii  churches  than  in  the  Baptift.'* 

By  Pacdobaptifts,  you  here  mean  thofe  who 
fprinkle  children.  The  fame  miftake  is  alfo 
made  in  the  following  paflages. 

Page  25.  "  Now  you  (/.  «?.  the  Baptifts)  be- 
lieve, that  the  moft  numerous,  the  moft  emi- 
nent, and  moft  fuccefsful  preachers  of  the 
gofpel  have  becn^  and  are  of  the  Ptedobaptift 
fentiment.'* — "  Compare  the  Paedobaptift  di- 
vines with  the  Baptift  divines  as  to  their  nunv- 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  23 

bers,  talents,  weight  of  charafler,  and  fuccefs 
in  writing  and  preaching  the  gofpel ;  behold, 
examine,  eftimate  the  vaft  difference  in  favour 
of  the  former  !!1" 

Now,  Sir,  it  gives  me  a  degree  of  pain,  on 
your  account,  that,  feeing  your  mind  hath  been 
fo  highly  gratified  with  exalted  ideas  of  your 
own  denomination,  I  have  been  obliged  to  re- 
duce your  claims  fo  much  already,  and  (hall 
be  obliged  to  reduce  them  ftill  lower  in  fome 
of  my  future  letters  ;  but  be  affured  my  inten- 
tion  is  to  allow  you,  before  I  leave  the  fubjecT:, 
every  honourable  and  good  thing,  which  you 
can  in  the  fpirit  of  meeknefs  defire.     I  will  not 
defignedly  raife  the  Baptifts  at  your  expenfe,  nor 
can  I  fee  them  oppreffed,  degraded  and  harfhly 
ufed,  without  poltefling  a  wifh  to  have  truth  ap- 
pear.    You  know.  Sir,  that  all  good  men  have 
love  for  the  truth,  and  are  willing  to  have  it 
beiieved ;  that  it  would  pleafe  them  well  to  fee 
truth  profper,  at  the  expenfe  of  every  error  : 
but  to  have  the  fpirit  and  love  of  truth  fo  in- 
wrought in  our  fouls,  as  to  take  joyfully  the 
fpoiling  of  our  errors,  together  with  our  goods, 
eafe,  and  a  momentary  good  name,  is  not  fo 
common  among  Chrillians  as  it  mud  be,  before 
they  will  come  into  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  and 
general  bond  of  peace.    We  muft  poffefs  a  readi- 
nefs  to  be  conquered  by  truth.     Should  your 
publication,  by  plaufible  arguments,  gain  upon 
the  tender  feelings,  and  even   upon  the  judg- 
ment of  many,  or  fhould  mine  obtain  admirers 
in  the  fame  way,  yet,  if  the  caufe  of  fubftantial 
truth  be  not  promoted,  our  labour  will  be  of 
little  worth,  we  had  better  have  done  nothing. 


/Jl  Antili 
M.  Libiwu.     fc:  ■m; 


JeMKOIirist)  and-the^ieopk  who  wereflr*t  made 

ready  aa4  prepared  for  thi*  kiniidom, 

the  Gospel  Churcii,  were  all 

baptised  in  the  river 

of  JonUn  and 

In  ^lon. 

Mfu>  i.  a^d  ;«in  iii.  13. 


J,  Century. 

AH  B:iplist>. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  i$ 


LETTER   V. 

Open  Conwnmion  to  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances 
as  Chrlji  delivered  them  to  the  Saints^  but  Clofe 
Conwmnlon  to  all  others, 

MY    DEAR    SIR, 

1  HAVE  here,  that  our  underftanding 
and  our  faith  might  be  affifted  by  our  fight, 
fet  to  view  a  pidurefque  and  hieroglyphical 
reprefentation  of  the  church,  which  is,  by  her 
faith  and  practice,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth. 

We  may  not  erafe  old  Infcriptions  from  this 
pillar,  nor  may  we  infert  new  ones  at  our 
pleafure. 

The  infcriptions  upon  this  pillar,  and  by  the 
fides  of  it,  we  may  read  with  reverence,  and 
we  certainly  fhould  be  careful  how  we  reject 
them.  We  have,  doubtlefs,  liberty  to  examine 
by  the  written  word  of  God,  every  infcription 
which  we  here  find ;  but  the  examination 
Ihould  be  with  pious  candour,  and  with  much 
prayerful  deliberation!, 

Several  of  the  mofi:  important  facts  which 
relate  to  the  prefent  controverfy,  and  which 
the  church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth, 
hath  held,  in  the  different  ages  of  Chriftianity, 
are  fet  to  view  in  the  plate. 

As  you  have  profelTedly  made  this  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,  the  ground-work  of  your 
oppofition  againft  the  Baptills,  fo  I  purpofe  to 
c 


26  Letters  on  Open  CGmmunion, 

make  it  fomewhat  the  ground- work  of  my 
refutation  of  your  arguments,  and  the  fupport 
of  mine ;  but  the  law  and  the  tcftimony  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  are  the  preferable  ground  for  both. 

I  am  both  pained  and  pleafed  with  your  ar- 
guments againft  ciofe  communion. 

I  am  pained,  that  you  fliould  employ  fo 
much  honeft  labour  in  oppofition  to  what  you 
probably  believe  yourfelf,  and  in  oppofition  to 
what,  I  prefume,  nine-tenths  of  your  own  de- 
nomination believe  ;  and  in  oppofition  to  what 
the  churchy  which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth,  hath  always,  taken  coUedively,  be- 
lieved, namely,  that  baptifm  is  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed pre-requijjte  to  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table. 

I  am  pleafed,  that  you  could  find  no  argu- 
ment to  juftify  your  oppofition ;  and  that  the 
truth  on  which  you  purpofely  ground  your 
firft  argument,  and  take  as  the  principle  or 
firength  of  all  the  reft,  reproves  your  oppofi- 
tion and  juftifies  the  Baptifts. 

Your  firft  argument,  w^hen  reduced  to  logi- 
cal fo»m,  is, 

'  The  church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth. 

*  The  church  holds  to  open  communion. 
Therefore, 

'  The  clofe  communion  of  the  Baptifts  is  a 
departure  from  the  truth,  and  ought  to  be 
oppofed  by  all  good  Chriftians.* 

In  this  argument  the  major  propofition  is 
true,  the  minor  falfe,  therefore  the  conclufion 
is  erroneous. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  11 

For  a  more  explicit  refutation  of  this  argu- 
ment, let  the  following  fads  be  duly  coniidered. 

1.  For  the  fifteen  firft  centuries  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  era,  there  was  not,  to  our  knowledge,  one 
fociety  of  baptized  Chritlians,  but  held  to  clofe 
communion,  in  the  very  particular  in  which 
the  Baptifts  now  do,  with  refpect  to  your  de- 
nomination ;  that  none  fhould  be  admitted  to 
communion  before  baptifm. 

2.  The  general,  if  not  the  univerfal,  fenti- 
ment  of  the  church,  including  Baptifts  and 
Paedobaptifts,  from  the  eai  lieft  age  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  era,  to  the  prefent^  hath  been,  that  clofe 
communion  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures. 

3.  Your  own  denomination,  from  its  begin- 
ning, hath  been,  fentimentally, clofe  commun- 
ionills.  Their  fentiment  hath  been,  that  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm  fhould  be  firlf  adminifter- 
ed.  It  is  true,  they  have  not  underftood  what 
baptifm  is,  or  have  refufed  to  praclife  it,  and 
have  fet  afide  the  baptifm  which  was  from 
heaven,  for  an  ordinance  of  men  ;  but  even 
this  ordinance  they  confider  as  having  a  prior 
claim  to  that  of  the  fupper. 

You  do  not,  Sir,  nor  do  your  denomination, 
appear  to  advantage,  whiKl  oppofing  the  clofe 
communion  of  the  Baptills,  for  in  this  you 
oppofe  the  general  fentiment  and  practice  of 
the  church,  and  the  general  fentiment  and  pro- 
felled  pradice  of  your  own  denomination. 
Your  general  fentiment  and  fuppofed  practice 
are,  that  the  doors  of  the  communion  Ihould 
be  clofed  againft  the  unhaptized.  Your  denom- 
ination are  of  this  defcription  j  they  are  not 


28  Letters  on  Open  Comjuunion, 

baptized  ;  they  can  produce  no  evidence  that 
you  are,  and  fo  can  make  out  no  claim,  upon 
your  own  principles,  to  the  communion. 

If  you  be  not  pleafed  with  the  above  ftate- 
ment  of  your  argument,  I  will,  if  agreeable  to 
you,  ftate  it  thus  : 

'  The  church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth. 

*  Your  denomination  is  the  church,  and 
holds  to  open  communion.     Therefore, 

*  The  clofe  communion  of  the  Baptills  is  in 
oppofition  to  the  church,  and  ought  to  be  op- 
pofed  by  all  good  Chriftians.* 

Your  argument,  in  this  form,  may  receive 
the  following  fhort  anfwer. 

Your  major  propofition  is  true,  but  your 
minor  is  not,  for  you  are  not  the  church,  as 
will  appear  in  fome  of  the  fubfequent  pages, 
nor  do  you,  as  a  denomination,  hold  to  open 
communion  ;  therefore,  the  clofe  communion 
of  the  Baptills  ihould  be  oppofed  by  no  good 
Chriilian. 

2.  Your  next  argument  is,  profeffedly, 
founded  upon  the  defcriptive  word  of  God  in 
favour  of  the  church. 

To  a  fuperficial  obferver,  you  might  appear 
to  fet  out  well.  You  begin  thus  :  "  I  proved, 
(fay  you)  upon  the  evidence  of  fafts,  that  for 
at  lead  three  hundred  years  pad,  the  greater 
part  of  real  believers  have  been  baptized  by 
fprinkling,  and  have  remained  without  the 
limits  of  the  BaptiH  churches ;  and,  if  thefe 
be  the  only  churches  of  Chrift,  they  have  re- 
mained without  the  limits  of  the  true  vifible 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  29 

church.  Such  is  our  forlorn  fituation,  if  the 
Baptift  defcription  of  it  be  juft.*'* 

Should  your  fuppofed  facts  be  proved  not 
to  befafts,  your  argument  would  fall  of  itfelf. 
Should  they  be  merely  doubtful,  your  argu- 
ment would  be  a  dubious  one. 

Your  fuppofed  facts  are  three. 

1.  For  at  leaft  three  hundred  years  pad,  the 
greater  part  of  real  believers  have  been  baptized 
by  fprinkling. 

2.  For  at  leaft  three  hundred  years  pad,  the 
greater  part  of  real  believers  have  remained 
without  the  limits  of  the  Baptift  church. 

3.  If  the  Baptift  churches  be  the  only  churches- 
of  Chrift,  the  greater  part  of  real  believers  have, 
for  at  leaft  three  hundred  years,  remained  with- 
out the  limits  of  the  true  vifible  church. 

As  to  your  firft  fuppofed  fad,  it  hath  no 
foundation  in  truth  ;  for  it  is  an  abufe  of  lan- 
guage to  fay,  that  any  perfon,  or  fociety  of  men, 
was  ever  baptized  by  fprinkling.  To  fprinkie  an 
handful  of  water  upon  a  perfon  is  no  more 
baptifm,  than  to  fprinkie  the  fame  quantity  of 
duft  upon  a  perfon  is  burying  him. 

Your  fecond  and  third  fuppofed  facts  are 
not  intuitively  certain.  Perhaps  you  might  be 
lefs  pofitive,  were  you  more  largely  acquainted 
with  the  number  and  hearts  of  all  the  Baptifts, 
in  the  various  corners  and"  hiding-places  of  the 
earth  ;  and  had  you,  at  the  fame  time,  a  per- 
fe<ft  view  of  the  genuine  characters  of  all  the 
profeflbrs  of  all  other  denominations. 

*  Page  17. 
C  2 


3©  Letters  on  Open  Com?nun'wn, 

But  fuppofe  we  grant  you,  that  there  are 
more  real  Chriftians  of  your  denomination, 
than  are  to  be  found  among  the  Baptifts,  yet 
your  fa(Els  and  arguments  from  them,  prove 
nothing  to  your  point. 

Your  argument  from  the  fuppofed  facts  is 
this. 

'  God  makes  your  denomination  greatly  in- 
ftrumental  of  the  awakening  and  falvation  of 
linners,  and  thus  hath  enlarged  you  abundant- 
ly. God  would  not  have  done  thus,  were  not 
you  and  your  brethren  in  the  vifible  church 
of  Chrift  ;  therefore  you  and  they  are  vifible 
church  members  ;  and  hence  it  is  contrary 
from  Scripture  to  refufe  communion  with  you 
at  the  Lord's  table.'* 

Now  we  will  grant  all  that  you  afk,  as  to 
God's  blefilng  you  to  the  awakening  and  fal- 
vation of  finners,  and  that  the  providence  of 
God  hath,  for  more  than  two  hundred  years 

*  If  in  the  ftatement  of  the  above  argument,  or  in  the  ftatcment  of 
any  other  of  your  argiimeius,  you  fiiould  confidcr  me  not  to  have 
comprehended  you  fully,  or  not  to  have  dated  your  arguments  with 
accuracy,  I  have  but  oiic  apology  and  one  requeft  to  make. 

My  apology  is  this.  Your  arguments  N\cre  not,  generally,  brought 
to  a  point  fo  clearly  as  1  could  have  v. ifticd ;  but  I  have  colic-fled 
yo.ir  prinripal  ideas  as  j:,ft'y,  and  dated  them  with  as  muchprecifion, 
as  I  could. 

My  requeft  is.  Should  you,  or  any  of  your  denomination,  in  future 
pubhfli  on  the  prefcnt  fubjetl,  be  kind  enough  to  let  us  have  your 
iuguments  numbered,  aad  each  brought  to  a  focus. 

if  we  muft  coutend,  \\t  wifh  to  do  it  whilO  each  fide  fliall  pofTcfs 
a  field  view  of  the  fubji  fl.  We  defire  to  underftand  you  completely, 
ami  wifh  you  to  have  a  comprehenfive  view  our  defence. 

Our  wifh  is,  to  mcit  you  in  the  open  field,  in  broad  day-light. 
Chriftians  fiiould  avoid  every  work  of  difguife,  and  every  argument 
which  is  in  its  own  nature  fophiftical  or  delulory. 

If  you  liave  no  arguments  which  can  fairly  convifl  us,  let  the  con- 
troverfy  ceafe  ;  if  you  have,  fet  them  before  us  in  all  their  limplicily, 
foi  we  iruft  we  have  a  good  coafcicace,  willing  to  admit  c^miftion. 


'  Letters  on  Open  Communion^  31 

paft,  greatly  enlarged  your  denomination  ;  but 
that  God  would  not  thus  blefs  you,  were  you 
not  in  the  vifible  church  of  Chrift,  is  the  very 
thing  for  you  to  prove,  which  you  can  no  more 
do,  than  you  can  prove  that  God  never  bleffes 
florms,  thunder,  peftilence,  earthquakes,  nat- 
ural darknefs,  or  the  zeal  of  young  converts, 
to  the  produ<5lion  of  the  fame  good  effects. 

Your  third  argument  is  from  the  promiffory 
part  of  the  word  in  favour  of  the  church. 

Dear  Sir,  this  argument  hath,  no  doubt,  to 
very  many  of  your  readers,  a  very  plaufible 
appearance,  and  a  majority  of  them  will  proba- 
bly fet  it  down  as  conclufive. 

Not  one  of  your  arguments  hath  a  more 
decent  appearance,  nor  one  of  them,  at  firfl: 
view,  bids  fairer  to  prove  your  fubject,  and  fo 
to  fettle  the  controverfy.  Here  is,  I  confefs, 
to  a  fuperficial  reader,  an  handfome  fhow  of 
evidence.  You  have  ftated  this  argument 
clearly,  and  with  a  good  degree  of  precifion. 
It  fhall  be  now  fet  before  the  reader  in  your 
own  words. 

On  page  21  you  thus  exprefs  it  : 

"  The  promife  being  made  to  Zion  only,  the 
fulfilment  of  it  in  our  churches  proves  them 
to  be  Zion,  the  church  of  the  living  God.'* 

We  will,  that  you  may  have  a  (hort  yet  full 
anfwer.  to  this  argument,  grant,  for  the  prefent, 
without  defining  any  thing,  that  the  promife 
that  men  fhall  be  born  of  God,  is  made  to  Zion 
only.  We  will  further  grant,  that  this  promife 
hath  been  largely  fulfilled  in  your  denomina- 
tion j  but  that  the  fulfilment  of  this  promife 


32  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

in  your  denomination  proves  you  to  be  Zion, 
the  church  of  the  "living  God,  is  what  we  can- 
not grant,  nor  have  you  any  right  to  require 
it.  Oar  reafons  we  will  give  you :  they  are 
two. 

The  jir/i  is — The  promife,  though  made  to 
Zion,  was  not  that  it  fliould  be  fulfilled  in  her, 
and  not  eifewhere. 

Our  fecond  reafon  is — The  promife  is  fre- 
quently, if  not  generally,  fulfilled  out  of  Zion. 

This  promife  may  be  fulfilled  in  the  houfe 
of  an  infidel,  enveloped  by  a  thunder  florm  ; 
in  the  houfe  where  peftilence  rages ;  in  a  fhip, 
toffed  with  a  temped  ;  in  a  company,  where 
young  converts  affectionately  warn  finners  to 
flee  from  the  v/rath  to  come.  Moreover,  the 
Pfalmiil*  informs  us  that  this  promife  was  ful- 
filled in  Rahab,  Babylon,  Philiftia,  Tyre  and 
Ethiopia;  for  of  thefe  it  is  faid,  '  This  man  was 
born  there.' 

Now,  Sir,  will  you  fay,  that  an  houfe  of  an 
infidel,  enveloped  by  a  thunder  ftorm,  that  an 
houfe  where  peftilence  rages,  that  a  fliip  tofled 
with  a  tempeft,  that  a  company  where  young 
converts  affeftionately  warn  the  wicked,  that 
Rahab,  that  Babylon,  that  Philiftia,  that  Tyre, 
and  that  Ethiopia,  are  each  of  them  Zion,  the 
.phurch  of  the  living  God  ?  Your  argument  is 
equally  good  to  prove  all  the  above  to  be  the 
church  of  the  living  God,  as  to  prove  your 
denomination  to  be.  You  fee  your  argument 
can  do  you  but  little  fervice,  for  it  proves  every 
thing  to  be  the  church,  as  much  as  it  proves 

*  Ffalm  Ixxxvii.  4. 


Leiten  on  Open  Communion*  33 

your  denomination  to  be  io  ;  hence,  it  is  of  no 
fervice  in  the  prefent  debate.  You  know,  Sir, 
that  fuch  argumentation  will  never  fettle, 
though  it  may  lengthen,  the  important  con- 
troverfy  now  on  hand. 

Your  fourth  argument  is  built  upon  our  fup- 
pofed  inconfiftency. 

We  are  ready  to  commune  with  you  in 
prayer,  Chriftian  conference,  and  in  the  pulpit, 
but  not  at  the  Lord's  table. 

Becaufe  we  judge  it  both  lawful  and  expedi- 
ent to  eommune  with  you  in  the  three  firft 
particulars,  you  conclude  we  ought  in  the  laft. 
You  alfo  charge  our  refufal  with  inconfiftenc}''. 

For  our  practice,  where  you  condemn  us, 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  acquits  and 
commends  us.  For  our  communing  with  you 
in  prayer,  conference  and  the  pulpit,  we  fhall 
endeavour  to  juftify  ourfelves  in  a  future  letter ; 
vi'hich,  if  we  can  do  it,  will  excufe  us  from 
feeling  or  allowing  any  weight  to  this  argu- 
ment ;  if  we  cannot,  you  fliould  be  the  latl  to 
fault  us,  for  our  miftake  at  moft  is  but  this,  we 
commune  with  you  further  than  we  ought. 

5.  Your  next  argument  is — "  We  ihould 
hold  fellowfliip  with  thofe  who  appear  to  have 
fellcTwfhip  with  Chrift." 

This  is  the  very  principle  on  which  we  pro- 
ceed, and  by  which  we  wilh  to  fquare  our 
practice.  You  appear  to  have  fellowlhip  with 
Chriil  in  prayer,  converfation  and  preaching, 
but  you  do  not  appear  to  have  fellowlhip  with 
him  as  gofpel  and  regular  churches,  for  you 
refufe  to  be  fuch  j  you  will  not  take  upon  you 


34.  Letters  en  Open  Communmt. 

the  clfuixh,  the  Chriftian,  badge  ;  you  ftrongly 
oppofe,  and  continually  refule,  to  fubmit  to 
that  ordinance  of  Jefus  Chrift,  by  which  alone 
you  can  begin  to  be  regular  gofpel  churches, 
or  church  members  ;  therefore,  as  regular 
churches  of  Chrift,  we  have  no  fellowfhip  with 
you.  In  this  our  practice,  we  do  not  ftand 
acquitted  only,  but  commended,  by  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth. 

Your  fuppofed  "  undeniable  inference,** 
*'  Yet,  in  imitation  of  Chrift,  they  (the  Baptift 
churches  and  the  communities  of  your  denom- 
ination) fhould  walk  as  brethren,  and  live  in 
fellowfhip  as  churches  oi  equal Jianding  in  Chrift,*' 
is  the  very  thing  which  we  deny.  Your  pre- 
mife  whence  you  draw  this  inference,  is  not  able 
to  fupport  it.  This  is  your  premife,  "  Chrift: 
hath  fellowfliip  with  both,  fo  far  as  they  walk 
in  the  path  of  the  juft  ;"*  but  you  refufe  to 
walk  in  the  path  of  the  juft  ;  you  rejed  Chrift*s 
command  to  be  baptized  :  here  you  break  fel- 
lowfliip v/ith  Chrift,  and  here  we  break  with 
you. 

This  argument,  being  both  plaufible  and 
popular,  we  will  take  a  little  larger  view  of 
both  the  argument  and  anfwer. 

The  argument  is,  "  The  Baptifts  (fay  you) 
ought  to  commune  with  us  at  the  Lord's  table, 
for  they  are  commanded  to  receive  Chriftians, 
even  as  Chrift  Jefus  hath  received  them.  Chrift 
receives  us  and  communes  with  us  at  his  own 
table,  therefore  the  Baptifts  ought  to  do  the 
fame.** 

*  Page  2j. 


Letters  on  Open  Connnumon*  35 

Anfwer,  Why  do  you  not  carry  the  matter 
through,  and  by  this  plaufible  argument,  prove 
that  the  Baptiils  fhould  commune  with  you  in 
your  unfcriptural  rite  oi  fprinkling  for  baptij'm, 
and  in  your  adminiftering  this  rite  to  your  un- 
believing children  ?  The  argument  is  juft  as 
good  to  prove  obligation  to  communion  in 
thefe  latter  inilances,  as  in  the  former.  You 
tell  us  that  the  Lord  communes  with  you  in 
each,  in  one  as  really  as  in  the  other. 

Again — Why  do  you  not  apply  this  argu- 
ment to  convert  the  Baptifts  to  thorough  Pse- 
dorantifm  ?  for  the  argument  is  as  good,  in 
whole,  as  in  any  part. 

If  this  argument  have  any  force,  it  comes 
with  its  full  native  llrength  againft  the  Psedo- 
rantifts,  and  demands  of  them  fpeedy  obedi- 
ence. Chrift  receives  the  Baptifts  in  his  gofpel 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  commands  all  his 
difciples  among  your  denomination  to  join  in 
this  commonnefs  of  reception  or  communion. 
Here  you  ought  to  feel  the  weight  of  your  own 
argument,  properly  applied,  and  did  you  fo 
feel  it  as  to  be  obedient,  the  prefent  difficulty 
between  you  and  the  Baptifts  would  foon  ter- 
minate. 

Let  the  Peedorantifts  judge  on  which  fide 
your  argument  hath  the  greater  force,  either 
in  favour  of  the  Baptifts'  communing  with 
tliem,  where  they  walk  not  according  to  the 
order  of  the  gofpel,  or  in  favour  of  the  Paedo-. 
rantifts'  communing  firft  with  the  Baptifts, 
"where  they  walk  in  the  precepts  and  pradices 
of  Jefus  Chrift  and  his  apoftles. 


36  Letters  on  Open  Communion^ 

Your  lafl  argument*  if  it  may  be  calkd  on^, 
is,  **  Clofe  communion  makes  a  fchifm  in  the 
church,  is  without  and  contrary  to  Scripture, 
and  is  in  direcl  oppofitir.n  to  the  fpirit  of 
brotherly  love,  in  the  pious  brethren  among 
the  Baptifts.'* 

Now,  dear  Sir,  could  you  make  out  one 
fmgle  feclion  of  this  unfounded  charge  againft 
clofe  communion,  we  would  very  fpeedily  re- 
nounce it.  But  you  know,  that  accufations 
become  formidable,  only  as  evidence  is  prefent- 
ed  by  a  guilty  confcience,  or  by  the  accufing 
party.  Each  of  your  charges  againft  clofe  com- 
munion fail  of  evidence  in  both  thefe  ways ; 
of  confequence,  they  adminifler  no  conviAion. 
Clofe  couimunion  makes  no  fchifm,  if  it 
exclude  no  church  member.  It  is  not  without 
Scripture,  if  baptifm  be  the  firft  gofpel  ordi- 
nance, and  the  introductory  one  to  the  church. 
It  is  not  contrary  from  the  Scripture,  if  bap- 
tized believers  are  no  where  commanded  to 
communicate  at  the  Lord's  table  with  fuch  as 
refufe  to  be  baptized.  It  is  not  in  direct  op- 
pofition  to  the  fpirit  of  brotherly  love,  in  the 
pious  brethren  among  the  Baptills,  unlefs  their 
brotherly  love  is  againft  keeping  the  ordinances 
as  Chrift  hath  delivered  them  to  the  churches, 
I  have  now  taken  a  fhort  view  of  all  your 
arguments,  fave  one,  againft  clofe  communion. 
This  one  runs  through  ahnoft  every  pare  of 
your  pamphlet.  It  is  dilkgreeable  to  animad- 
vert upon  it,  not  becaufe  it  is  hard  to  difprove, 
but  becaufe  it  is  an  argument  in  which  you 
take  much  fatisfadion,  and  becaufe  it  will  be 


Letters  on  Ope?i  CorJimunion,  ^y 

very  dlfpleafing  to  you  and  your  denon)ination 
to  lofe  it.  Should  the  lofs  of  it  humble  you, 
as  much  as  the  fuppofed  poffeffion  of  it  hath 
encouraged  your  oppofition.  it  may  bring  you 
to  the  condition  in  which  you  ftiould  be,  wil- 
ling to  be  a  Baptift. 

1  will,  for  the  prefent,  mention  a  few  paf- 
fages  only,  in  which  this  argument  is  inferted. 
In  page  1 4.  "  From  the  era  of  Luther,  (fay 
you)  to  the  prefent  time,  the  light  of  the  truth 
hath  been  an  hundred,  perhaps  a  thoufand,  fold 
greater  in  the  Psedobaptifl  churches,  than  in 
the  Baptift." 

For  the  prefent  I  will  allow  much  more  than 
you  have  any  right  to  demand  :  that  the  Psedo- 
baptifts  and  Paedorantifts  are  of  equal  ftanding, 
and  that  you  may  claim,  for  your  denomina- 
tion, the  good  things  which  aTe  found  among 
both. 

I  now  put  the  queftion.   What  light  have 
you,  or  have  you  ever  had,  which  the  Eaptifts 
have  not  ?  Can  you  claim  a  fmgle  ray  of  light, 
and  make  your  pretenfions  good,  to  wliich  the 
Baptifts  cannot  make  out  an  equal  tiUe  ?     Are 
you  acquainted  with  all  the  light,  which  the  Bap- 
tifts,  fcattered  in  every  corner  of  Europe,  have 
poffeffed  ?    Are  you  certain,  by  comparing  the 
light  of  the  Baptifts  with  that  of  your  denom- 
ination, that  your  light  hath  exceeded  their's 
an  hundred  fold,  or  ten  fold,  or  even  two  fold  ? 
If  not,  their  light  may,  for  aught  you  have 
proved  to  the  contrary,  furpafs  your's.     It  cer- 
tainly does  in  one  particular,  in  the  article  of 
o 


38  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

baptifm  ;  for  you  have  not,  to  this  day,  h'ght 
enough  to  difcover  the  plain  Scripture  account 
of  that  ordinance,  or  grace  enough  to  confefs 
and  praclife  it. 

In  page  21,  this  fame  argument  is  thus  ex- 
prefied  :  "  Now  you  believe,  that  the  moft 
numerous,  the  nioft  eminent,  and  the  mod  fuc- 
cefsful  preachers  of  the  gofpel,  have  been,  and 
are  now  of  the  Paedobaptift  fenriment." 

We  believe  no  fuch  thing.  We  believe  that 
there  have  been,  and  that  there  now  are,  many 
eminent  and  fuccefsful  preachers  of  the  gofpel 
among  the  Pasdobaptifts,  and  alfo  among  the 
Paedorantills.  But  we  have  no  idea,  that  they 
can  mention  more  eminent  men,  than  were 
Chrift's  forerunner,  who  was  a  Baptift  ;  the 
man  Chrift  Jefus,  who  was  a  Bapriil,  and  his 
difciples  and  apoftles,  who  were  all  B.^ptiOs.* 

This  beloved  argument  is  called  forward 
again  in  the  fame  page,  and  in  the  following 
words :  *•'  Compare  the  Paedobaptift  divines 
with  the  Baptift  divines  as  to  their  numbers, 
talents,  weight  of  charadler,  and  fuccefs  in 
writing  and  preaching  the  gofpel  ;  behold^  ex- 
amine^ eftimate  the  vaft  dift'ercnce  in  favour  of 
the  former  il!" 

I  am  not  accuftomed  to  the  forming  of  an.- 
fwers  to  fuch  an  argument,  but  1  may  propofe 
a  queftion  or  two,  which,  perhaps,  will  be 
enough  for  the  prefent. 

*  No  pciTon  can,  wiih  **'ery  good  face,  deny  that  John,  ChnPt's 
forerunner,  was  a  B^ptiO .  Chrill  was  liaptized  by  '<i  BLipiill,  in  Jor- 
dan, he  was  thciefore  a  B?ptift.  Chrifl'K  cfifuples  were  baptized  in 
Jordan,  or  in  /Enon,  aiwi  by  a  Baptifl.  1  he  fair  coiiclufion  is,  they 
were  ail  Bapufts. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  39 

"What  will  you  think  of  this  your  argument, 
when  you  and  your  brethren  (hall  be  converted 
to  the  truth  of  baptifm,  and  readily  follow  the 
Nazarene  in  this  defpifed  ordinance  ?  and  when 
you  {hall  know,  xhlt  Jefus  hath  fucceeded  you, 
not  becaufe  you  were  walking  orderly  in  his 
houfe,  but  becaufe  he  had  need  of  many  mate- 
rials to  be  in  readinefs  againft  the  fet  time,  to 
ere(fl  his  kingdom,  fpecially  on  earth  ?  Will 
you  then  conhder  fuch  an  argument  to  be  in 
point,  on  the  fubjedl  now  debating  ? 

We  will,  at  this  time,  inilance  but  one  paf- 
faere  more,  where  this  favourite  arQ;um^ent  is 

CD  '  O 

mentioned. 

In  page  19,  whilft  fpeaking  of  the  Baptids, 
it  is  thus  exprelTed  :  "  They  are  but  a  fmall 
people,  compared  with  the  thoufands  of  Ifrael." 

For  anfwer,  we  reply — Micah  v.  2.  '  But 
thou,  Beth-lehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be 
little  among  the  thoulands  of  Judah,  yet  out 
of  thee  {hall  he  come  forth  unto  me  tl!at  is  to 
be  ruler  in  Ifrael,  whofe  goings  forth  have  been 
from  of  old,  from  everiaiting.'  Ver.  3.  '  Then 
the  remnant  of  his  brethren  fhall  return  unto 
the  children  of  Ifr'ael.' 

Now,  Sir,  what  we  are  expecfing  and  waiting 
for  is,  the  happy  period  when  the  brethren 
among  yoifr  denomination,  and  among  the 
P8sdobapiifts,  and  the  jews  alfo,  lliall  follow 
the  Ruler  of  Ifrael,  and  join  the  baptized  hoil: 
of  the  Lord. 

Before  1  ciofe  this  letter,  I  have  to  ftate  a 
number  of  particulars,  which  are  not  altogether 
unworthy  of  your  critical  obiervation— 


40  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

And  thejirji  is  this — If  your  major  propoli- 
tion  in  your  firft  argument,  and  on  which  you 
reft  the  main  defence  of  your  fubject,  be  true, 
it  dedroys  every  argument  which  you  have 
brought,  or  can  bring,  againft  cbfe  comnmnion. 

Your  propofition  is  this,  "  The  church  is  the 
piliir  and  ground  of  the  truth." 

Now,  Sir,  this  pilhir  fays,  and  uninterrupt- 
edly teftifies,  for  the  firft  fifteen  hundred  years 
of  the  Chriftian  era,  and  ever  fince,  for  aught 
you  have  proved  to  the  contrary, 

1.  That  gofpel  baptifm  is  immerfion,  in  the 
name  of  the  Fathef,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft. 

.2.  That  baptifm  is  a  divinely  appointed  pre- 
requifite  to  the  communion  at  the  Lord's  table. 
Here  we  draw  this  conclufion,  that  the  pillar 
of  the  truth  not  only  juflihes  the  Baptifts  for 
their  clofe  communion,  but  requires  them  to 
praclife  it,  and  reproves  you  and  your  denomi- 
nation for  oppofing. 

The  fecond  particular  is  this — Before  you 
fhall  again  publickly  blame  the  Baptifts  for 
refuhng  communion  with  your  denomination, 
you  ought  to  prove,  either  firfl:,  that  you  be- 
long to  the  vifible  church  of  Jefus  Chrift,  or 
fecondly,  that  the  fupper  is  to  be  adminiftered 
to  thofe  who  are  out  of  it  ;  the  laft  you  will 
not  advocate  ;  to  ellabhfli  the  firft,  you  muft 
prove  one  of  thefe  two  things, — either  firft, 
that  the  brethren  of  your  denomination  are 
baptized,  which  you  cannot  do,  or  fecondly, 
that  unbaptized  perfons  belong  to  the  viftble 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  41 

cliurch,  which  you  will  find  equally  diiHcult  to 
afcertain. 

3.  Another  thing  in  your  pamphlet,  worthy 
of  your  obfervation,  is,  that  through  the  whold 
of  it  you  have  taken  rather  too  much  for  grant- 
ed, and  in  no  place  proved  the  only  thing  in 
difpute  between  your  denomination  and  the 
Baptifts.  The  difpute  between  us  and  you  is 
very  fimple  ;  it  is  juft  this — We  fay,  you  have 
never  commenced  members  of  the  vifible  king- 
dom of  Chrift,  in  his  inftituted  way  :  prove 
that  you  have,  and  the  difpute  between  you 
and  us  is  ended,  or  the  blame  is  our's. 


D  2 


4,2  Letters  on  Ope?i  Communion, 


LETTER    VI. 

Open  Conwiunion  to  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances  a^ 
Chriji  delivered  them  :  but  cloje,  or  cor^ned^ 
Communion  from  all  others^  defended* 

DEAR    SIR, 

IT  is  no  plealing  tafk  to  the  Baptifts 
to  be  obliged  to  fault  thole  whom  they  love  as 
brethren  ;  but  love  and  duty  to  your  Lord 
and  their's  conftrain  them  to  contend  earneiUy 
for  a  part  of  the  faith,  which  you  deny.  It  is 
your  refufing  to  keep  the  ordinances  as  they 
were  delivered  to  the  churches,  which  occaiions 
the  whole.  Were  the  diibbedience  our'?,  the 
befl  which  it  would  become  us  to  do,  would  be 
patiently  to  be  blamed,  and  fpeedily  to  reform. 
The  blame  is  not  on  our  fide,  yet  we  are  not 
angry  to  be  heavily  cenfured  by  our  erring 
and  deficient  brethren.  Nor  does  it  of  right 
belong  to  us  to  defend  our  practice,  before  you 
prove  it  to  be  cenfurable.  But  fmce  you  con- 
sider yourielves  juftifiable  in  beginning  and 
profecuting  a  ftrife  with  us,  on  account  of 
our  apoftoHcal  and  uninterrupted  practice,  we 
would  acl  the  Chriftian  part,  and  give  you  the 
reafons. 

You  ought  ever  to  remember,  that  we  had 
no  hand  in  beginning  this  Jirife  among  brethren  ; 
r.or  have  we  any  hand  in  prolonging  it,  any 
further  than  carefully  keeping  the  ordinances 
of  Jefus  Chrill  does  this.  The  difpute  on  clofe 
communion  could   never  have  had  birth,  had 


Letters  on  Open  Co?fmunion,  43 

not   fome  profefTed  Chriftians   refufed   to  be 
baptized. 

Before  we  begin  any  regular  defence  of  the 
clofe  communion  pra^flice,  it  is  but  reafonable, 
that  both  (ides  lliould  have  a  clear  view  of 
what  is  meant  by  it.  The  perfect  idea  of  clofe 
communion,  in  the  prefent  controverfy,  is,  The 
actual  communion  at  the  LonVs  table  is  to  be  con- 
fined to  baptized  believers. 

This  definition,  you.  Sir,  and  every  difputant 
on  your  iide  of  the  queftion,  ought  to  grant 
exphciily.  By  keeping  a  full  view  of  the  con- 
troverfy out  of  fight,  you  may  confufe  many 
of  your  readers,  but  can  adminiller  folid  con- 
viclion  to  none. 

Indeed,  Sir,  we  do  but  trifle  with  the  credu- 
lity of  the  public,  till  we  will  meet  the  queftion 
without  difguife.  Should  your  denomination 
contend  that  they  are  baptized,  let  them  bring 
forth  their  ftrong  arguments,  and  when  they 
fliall  have  eftabliihed  that  coritroverted  point, 
the  prefent  will  be  eftabliihed  in  your  favour 
at  once.  But  the  facl  is,  you  cannot  prove 
yourfelves  ever  to  have  been  baptized  ;  and  it 
is  on  this  account,  and  on  this  only,  that  you 
contend  with  us  about  clofe  communion. 

The  fair,  the  honeft,  the  fmiple  queftion 
before  us  is  this  : 

Are  baptized  believers  the  only  proper  fub- 
jecls  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  ? 

We  take  the  affirmative  of  the  queftion,  you 
the  negative. 

We  fay,  that  no  unbaptized  believer  hath 
any  gofpel  liberty  to  communicate  at  the  ordi- 


44-  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

nance  of  the  fupper  ;  you  affirm  that  fome 
hive,  and  that  baptifm  is  not  a  gofpel  pre- 
requifite. 

You  have  produced  your  arguments,  and 
we  frankly  confefs,  that  not  one  of  them  con- 
ftrains  us  to  believe,  or  hath  a  right,  in  our 
judgment,  to  blame  us  for  not  believing.  Had 
you  produced  the  fame  arguments,  with  a 
dired  view  to  prove  your  memberfhip  in  the 
in-oifible  church,  and  fo  fit  fubjecls  of  baptifm  ; 
and,  upon  this  principle,  requefhed  to  be,  agree- 
ably to  gofpel  rules,  inducted  into  the  vifible 
church,  your  arguments  would  have  been  in 
point,  and  would  doubtlefs  have,  in  number- 
lefs  inftances,  produced  conviction.  But,  Sir, 
good  arguments  for  one  fubjecl  will  not  prove 
another,  to  which  they  do  not  appertain. 

You  have  brought  many  good  things  to 
view,  and  offered  fufficient  evidence  on  feveral 
fubjecls ;  but  on  the  only  fubject  in  debate,  you 
have  not  been  happy  enough  to  find  an  argu- 
ment which  touches  it.  We  by  no  means 
charge  the  deficiency  to  any  want  of  penetra- 
tion or  piety  in  the  writer  j  for  what  is  want- 
ing cannot  be  numbered. 

Should  our  arguments  and  obfervations  on 
the  other  fide,  be  equally  inconclufive,  we 
mufi:,  after  having  confufed  the  minds  of  fome, 
ftirred  up  the  evil  difpofition  of  more,  and  ren- 
dered fervices,  perhaps  to  none,  leave  the  fub- 
jed:  where  we  found  it ;  continually  advocated 
and  conftantly  oppofed. 

Before  we  prefent  our  arguments,  one  obfer- 
vation  more  ought  to  be  made :  it  is  this — We 


1 


Letters  on  Open  Commi/nion.  45 

by  no  means  fet  you  '  at  naught  ;*  on  the  con- 
trary, we  have  all  that  eileem  and  love  for 
you,  which  we  can  have  for  pious,  learned  and 
faithful  men,  who  yf,i  break  one  of  Chrift's 
commandments,  1md  refufe  to  fubmit  to  that 
gofpel' ordinance,  which  alone  introduces  into 
the  vifible  church,  or  is  neceiTary  in  order  to 
memberftiip  in  it. 

We  now  witli  to  throw  our  arguments  in 
your  full  view ;  and  we  make  no  requeft  of 
you  to  beUeve  us  any  further  than  you  cannot 
honeflly  or  fafely  difbelieve. 

We  begin  our  arguments  precifely  where 
you  began  your's. 

I.  The  church  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth.  You  know,  that  this  argument,  or 
ground  of  argumentation,  in  a  perverted  ufe, 
hath  been  the  niain  ^ay  of  the  Romifh  Church, 
By  it  they  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
and  that  the  ;gfofs  fuperftitions,  and  all  the 
abominations  of  their  ghoftly  religion,  are  from 
heaven.  Yet,  this  argument,  under  due  re- 
flrictlons,  mud  (land  confeffed  as  being  a  good 
one.  If  it  fairly  come  to  your  fupport,  your 
caufe  is  gained  ;  if  it  fail  you,  your  ground  is 
loft  ;  for  it  runs  through  your  other  arguments, 
and  is  the  principal,  if  not  the  only  ftrength, 
which  they  can  pretend  to. 

Should  this  argument  come  to  our  help,  as 
we  expert  it  will,  you  will  be  compelled  to 
yield  the  controversy,  or  prolong  it  to  your 
nianifeft  difadvantage. 

Every  fentence  which  you  find  written  in 
your  favour,  upon  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 


46  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

truth,  you  have  full  right  to  claim,  without 
aiking  permiffion.  Wc  confider  ourfelves  at 
liberty  to  do  the  fame. 

Now,  Sir,  for  the  in  ciptions  upon  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth. 

What  are  they  ? 

The  firjl  very  lengthy  and  legible  Infcription, 
which  appertains  to  the  prefent  lubjed:  is,  Bap- 
tifm  by  immcrhon  of  the  whole  body  in  water, 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  only  baptifm,  which 
the  gofpel  enjoirrs  as  an  ordinance  of  Jefus 
Chriil. 

Second.  That  no  perfon  was,  or  is  to  be,  ad- 
mitted to  the  communion  table,  who  has  not 
been  thus  baptized,  fome  extreme  cafes  of 
natural  inability  excepted. 

Thefe  two  infcriptions,  on  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth,  are  very  plainly  to  be 
read,  for  the  fifteen  firft  centuries  of  the  Chrif- 
tian  era.  For  the  three  laft  centuries,  the  fame 
infcriptions  are  continued  ;  and  you  have  not 
proved,  and  therefore  we  conclude  you  cannot, 
that  any  contrary  infcription  hath  ever  been 
upon  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  To 
fpeak  in  a  little  plainer  language,  the  Eaftern 
and  Wellern,  or  Greek  and  lloman  Churches, 
which  in  early  ages  included  all  Chriftendom, 
held, 

1.  That  immerlion  in  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, he.  was  the  only  gofpel  baptifm. 

2.  That  this  baptifm  was  a  divinely  appointed 
pre-requifite  to  communion  in  the  ordinance 
of  the  fupper. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  47 

This  was  the  fentiment  of  the  church  for 
fifteen  hundred  years,  and  we  have  no  evidence 
but  it  hath  been  equally  her  fentiment  fince. 
This  was  the  fentiment  and  belief  of  the  church, 
for  more  than  a  thoufand  years  before  your 
denomination  was,  if  1  miftake  not,  ever  fo 
much  as  once  mentioned  in  the  world.  There 
were  fome,  who,  in  extreme  cafes,  as  they  term- 
ed them,  pradifed  as  you  now  fentimentally 
advocate.  But  not  one  fociety,  or  fo  much  as 
an  individual,  who  believed  the  pra<5lice  of 
fprinkling,  for  baptifm,  was  from  heaven  ;  or 
that  the  gofpel  pointed  out  any  way  of  admif- 
fion  to  the  Lord's  table,  but  through  Jordan, 
or  immerfion  in  the  name  of  the  facred  Three. 

Since  your  denomination  hath  arifen  in  the 
world,  a  diipute  hath  come  forward  between 
you  and  the  vifible  church,  whether  gofpel 
baptifm  fliall  be  required  of  perfons  before  they 
ftiall  communicate.  The  church  hath  always 
faid,  that  gofpel  baptifm  fliall  be  required  firlt. 
Your  denomination  fay  it  Ihall  not  be  j  and 
come  forward  and  fue  for  admiflion  into  the 
viiible  church,  in  a  way  by  which  the  church, 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  fay  the 
laws  of  Chrift's  houfe  futfer  none  to  come. 

We  wilh,  dear  Sir,  your  denomination  not 
only  to  know,  but  to  remember,  that  neither 
the  gofpel,  nor  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth,  have  ever  acknowledged  a  fociety  of 
Chriilians  of  your  fentiments  and  praclice,  in 
the  article  of  baptiim,  to  be  any  part  oi  the 
vifibie  church,  ftridly  fpeaking. 


48  Letters  on  Open  Commimion. 

The  church  of  Jefus  Chrift  was  firft  Baptift. 
In  procefs  of  time,  the  error  of  incorporating 
the  church  and  the  world  together,  brought 
forth  infant  baptifni.  Thofe  who  praftifed 
this  error,  were  denominated  Paedobaptills. 
Now  both  parents  and  their  infant  offspring 
were  in  the  church,  for  both  had  received  the 
initiating  ordinance. 

For  two  or  three  hundred  years  paft,  there 
have  been  an  increaling  number  of  Ibcieties  of 
Chriftians,  who  have  held  the  error  of  P?edo- 
baptifts,  and  added  another  to  it,  fprinkling 
for  baptifm  :  by  which  error,  they  are  not 
Baptifts  at  all,  but  Piedorantifls  ;  and  thus  {hut 
both  themfelves  and  their  children  too  out  of 
the  vifible  church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth  being  judge. 

1  he  Psedobaptifts  have  by  one  error  brought, 
at  leaft,  as  they  fuppofe,  their  children  with 
themfelves  into  the  vifible  church.  Your  de- 
nomination have,  by  another  error,  clofed  the 
doors  of  the  vifible  church,  not  againll  their 
children  only,  but  againft  themfelves  too.  Er- 
ror is  always  deviating  from  right,  and  always 
producing  evil.  Ihe  Psedobaptift  error  brings 
into  the  church  fuch  as  ought  not  to  be  there. 
Ihe  Paedorantift  error  fhuts  out  nriany  who 
have  a  right  to  come. 

It  is  not  a  little  flrange,  Sir,  that  you  fhould 
force  in  to  your  aid,  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth,  when  it  will  not,  and  cannot,  fpeak 
one  word  in  your  favour  ;  but  does,  and  muft 
bring  you  in  guilty,  in  whole,  as  to  the  point 
in  quellion. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  49 

Your  principal  witnefs,  the  church,  which 
you  not  only  confider  as  an  undoubted  witnefs 
of  the  truth,  but  as  being  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth,  and  which  is  the  only  one,  which 
can  give  currency  to  your  other  witnefTes,  ut- 
terly fails  you,  and  not  only  fo,  but  comes  over 
with  its  full  weight  to  our  juftification. 

II.  Our  fecond  argument  is  taken  from  the 
beginning  of  the  gofpel  flate  of  the  church. 

In  Luke  i.  17,  we  are  informed,  that  John 
was  to  go  before  our  Saviour,  in  the  fpirit  and 
power  of  Elias,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers 
to  the  children,  and  the  difobedient  to  the  wif- 
dom  of  the  juft,  to  make  ready  a  people  pre- 
pared for  the  Lord. 

In  Mark  i.  4,  we  are  told  how  he  made 
ready  and  prepared  this  people.  '  John  did 
baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and  preach  the  bap- 
tifm  of  repentance  for  the  remiflion  of  fins.* 
In  the  preceding  verfe,  he  preached,  faying, 
'  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  ttraight.* 

John,  Chrifl*s  forerunner,  did  two  things : 
?Ie  preached  repentance,  and  the  baptifm  of 
repentance  ;  that  is,  the  way  by  which  they 
fliould  publickly  manifeft  their  fincerity. 

Thofe  who  fubmitted  to  baptifm,  in  vifiblc 
or  manifeft  compliance  with  what  John  preach- 
ed, were  the  viiible  or  manifeft  people,  whom 
he  made  ready  and  prepared  for  the  Lord. 

Of  this  people,  and  of  this  only,  for  aught 
appears,  Chrift  took  and  formed  the  firft  vifible 
gofpel  church  ;  or  this  prepared  people  was  the 
church,  though  not  yet  organized.     The  head 

£ 


5»©  Letters  on  Opm  Communion* 

of  this  gofpel  church  was  baptized  in  Jordan. 
The  members  of  it  were  baptized  in  the  river 
of  Jordan,  or  in  iEnon,  or  fome  in  both,  and 
all  of  them  by  a  Baplill.  The  fair  and  legiti- 
mate confequence  is,  that  the  firft  vifible  gofpel 
church  was,  by  denomination,  a  Baptift  church. 

None  were  admitted  into  the  firft  gofpel 
vifible  church,  but  thofe  who  were  vifibly  pre- 
pared. None  were  viilbly  prepared,  but  fuch 
as  were  baptized. 

Now,  Sir,  we  argue  thus, — What  was  a 
neceffary  prerequifite  to  a  {landing  in  the  viii- 
ble  church  of  Jefus  Chrift,  when  it  was  firft 
conftituted,  is  a  neceffary  pre-requilite  ftill  ; 
unlefs  the  Lawgiver  hath  given  fome  new 
laws,  with  refpecl  to  what  are  neceffary  quali- 
fications. Since  no  new  laws  have  been  given, 
therefore  baptifm  is  neceffary  to  our  being 
members  of  the  vifible  church  of  Jefus  Chrift. 
The  Lord's  fupper  is  appointed  for  the  vifible 
church  of  Chrift,  and  for  none  elfe. 

You  cannot  prove  yourfelves  to  be  baptized  ; 
hence  you  cannot  prove  your  ftanding  in  the 
vifible  church  ;  therefore  you  cannot  prove 
your  title  to  the  communion  table.  The  con- 
fequence is,  the  reproach  which  you  heap  upon 
the  Baptifts,  in  this  particular,  appears  to  be, 
and  is,  for  any  thing  which  you  have  Ihown, 
or  can,  to  the  contrary,  all  your  own  j  or,  at 
leaft,  it  belongs  not  to  them. 

III.  Our  tbii'd  argument,  which  we  wifti  to 
lay  before  you,  relative  to  the  fubjecl  on  hand, 
and  for  your  candid,  as  well  as  critical,  confid- 
cration,  is  founded  upon  what  is  faid  upon 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  51 

the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  upon  an  indifpen- 
fable  pre-requifite  to  memberfliip  in  ir. 

Chrift  faith,  John  xviii.  36,  '  My  kingdom 
is  not  of  this  world.'  Nothing  fo  ilgniiicantly, 
vifibly  and  perfectly  feparates  it  from  i  'le  world, 
as  the  dividinsx  line  which  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
appointed.  Burial  and  the  Refurrection.  Buri- 
ed with  Chrift  by  baptifm  into  death,  wherein 
alfo  we  are  rifen  with  him  ;  that  like  as  Chriit 
was  raifed  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of 
the  Father,  even  fo  we  ah'b  fhould  walk  in 
newnefs  of  life.* 

In  John  ill.  5,  Chrift  faith  to  Nicodemus, 
*  Verily,  verily,  I  fay  unto  thee,  except  a  man 
be  born  of  water, — he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.* 

The  church,  which  you  acknowledge  to  be 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  teftifies, 
that  to  be  born  of  water,  as  in  this  text,  means 
water  baptifm,  and  that  this  water  baptifm  is 
immerfion. 

Now,  Sir,  your  denomination  hath  never 
been  born  of  water,  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth  being  judge  ;  and,  if  you  have  not 
been  born  of  water,  you  have  never  entered 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  Jefus  Chrift  being 
judge  ;  and,  if  you  have  never  entered  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  vifible  church,  you  have 
no  gofpel  liberty  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table, 
your  own  felves  being  judges  ;  and,  if  you 
have  no  liberty  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table, 
we  are  not  blamable  for  refufing  to  admit  you, 
truth  and  righteoufnefs  being  judges. 

*  Rom.  vi.  4.     Colof,  ii.  12, 


52  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

IV.  Our  fourth  argument,  to  which  we  beg 
your  Chriftian  attention,  is  built  upon  the 
commiilion  which  our  Lord  gave  his  apoftles, 
and  upon  their  confequent  and  correfponding 
practice. 

The  broad  and  perpetual  commifllon  is  re- 
corded, Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20,  thus:  '  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  (that  is,  difciple)  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  teach- 
ing them  to  obferve  all  things  whatfoever  I 
have  commanded  you  :  and,  lo,  I  am  with, 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen.' 

Here,  in  the  commifllon,  the  firfl  order  is, 
difciple,  or  fo  teach  as  to  make  difciples  of,  or 
among,  all  nations.  The  fecond  thing  to  be 
done  is,  to  baptize  them.  The  third  direction 
is,  to  teach  thefe  difciples  to  obferve  all  things 
whatfoever  the  Saviour  had  commanded. 

By  this  commiilion,  (and  the  apoftles  had 
no  other  authority  on  which  to  proceed,)  they 
had  no  liberty  to  teach  the  difciples,  before 
they  were  baptized,  any  thing  about  the  King's 
fcaft,  much  lefs  to  invite  and  admit  them  to  it. 
Accordingly,  in  all  the  practice  of  the  apoftles 
of  the  Lamb,  we  never  once  hear  them  fo  much 
as  mention  to  their  young  or  newly  made  dif- 
ciples, the  ordinance  of  the  fupper,  till  the  or- 
dinance of  baptifm  was  adminiftered  to  them. 

Read  the  A(5ts,  where  you  find  the  pra(5tice 
of  the  apoftles,  and  there  you  may  very  plainly 
fee  two  things  :  Fir/l,  That  baptifm  was,  agree- 
able to  the  apoftolic  commiflion,  enjoined  to  be 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  <,'^ 

dire^Iy  fubmitted  to,  by  all  fiich  as  were  con- 
verted to  the  Chriitian  religion.  Secondly^  Not 
the  leafl  intimation,  that  ever  one  was  admitted 
to  the  Lord's  table  prior  to  his  being  baptized. 

The  following  is  the  argument  in  (hort. 

In  agreement  with  the  commiflion  which  the 
Saviour  gave  his  difciples,  and  the  correfpond- 
ing  practice  of  the  apolUes,  no  unbaptized  per- 
fon  was  admitted  to  the  communion.  The 
fame  commiflion  which  our  Lord  gave  his 
primitive  apoftles,  he  ftiil  gives  us,  and  our 
practice  ought  to  be  as  their's  was.  Therefore 
no  unbaptized  perfon  is  to  be  admitted  to  the 
communion  table.  You  are  unbaptized,  the 
church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  as 
well  as  the  more  fure  word  of  prophecy,  being 
judge  ;  hence,  the  vifible  church  are  obliged  to 
refufe  communion  with  you,  till  you  will  obey 
the  Lord,  and  be  baptized. 

V.  We  have  a  fifth  argument,  which  may 
not  be  altogether  unworthy  of  your  notice  : 
It  is  this — We  have  no  authority  to  obliterate 
any  of  the  ancient  and  perpetual  infcriptions, 
which  are  on  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth,  nor  have  we  liberty  to  infert  any  new 
infcriptions  of  our  own  ipvention,  which  nuift 
be  done,  fhould  the  church  admit  you  to  the 
communion  table. 

We  wifh,  dear  Sir,  to  fpread  this  argument 
as  fully  before  you,  and  your  denoujination, 
as  we  can.     We  therefore  obferve, 

1.  That  the  viiible  church  of  Chrift  hath 
never  agreed  to  admit  to  her  communion  un- 

E  2 


54  Letters  on  Open  Conununwri, 

baptized  believers ;  flie  hath  no  fuch  infcription 
on  her  pillar  :    Therefore, 

2.  The  vifible  church  hath  never  agreed  to 
admit  your  denomination  into  the  vifible 
church,  or  to  the  ordinance  of  the  fupper. 
You  can  name  no  period,  from  the  apollles* 
day  to  this,  when,  or  in  which,  the  vifible 
church  received  your  denomination,  or  fo 
much  as  one,  who  fentimentally  belonged  to 
it,  as  a  member  of  her  body.  You  can  point 
out,  with  fome  degree  of  exaclnefs,  when  your 
denomination,  and  a  number  of  individuals  of 
the  church,  agreed,  or  began  to  agree,  that 
you  fhould  be  a  parr  of  the  vifible  church. 
But  this  is  manifeflly  a  piece  of  felfcreated 
bufinefs,  the  church  having  never  confented 
to  what  your  denomination  and  fome  of  her 
erring  children  have  done  in  this  matter. 
She  hath  never  fufFered  this  tranfadion  to  be 
engraven  on  her  pillar. 

3.  The  vifible  church  hath  ever  and  always 
faid,  that  no  unbaptized  believer  belongs  to 
her  number.     Therefore, 

4.  She  hath  ever  and  always  faid,  that  you 
are  not  of  her  vilible  fraternity,  and  fo  not  to 
be  admitted  to  her  communion. 

Our  prefent  argument  is  this :  Three  hun- 
dred years  ago,  your  denominarion  was  very 
fmall,  if  in  exjflence.  When  it  was  fmall,  the 
church  did  not  agree  to  receive  you  as  a  part 
of  her  vifible  body.  Certainly  the  church  of 
Rome  did  not,  for  you  nobly  renounced  her, 
and  {he  excommunicated  you.  The  Baptifl 
church  did  not,  for  in  her  opinion,  you  held 


Letters  on  Open  Conununlon.  ^$ 

to  certain  errors  which  forbid  it.  The  Psedo- 
baptift  Greek  Church  did  not,  for  you  held  to 
fprinkling  for  baptifm,  which  Hiq  beUeved  not, 
therefore  could  not  adn:iit  you. 

When  your  numbers  and  popularity  increaf- 
ed,  ftill  you  were  not,  that  we  find,  ever  admit- 
ted by  the  vifible  church.  Hence,  we  conclude, 
and  perhaps  with  more  certainty  than  you 
will  cheerfully  admit,  that  you  have  no  gofpel 
claim  to  memberfhip  in  the  vifible  church. 

Suppofe  your  denomination  excel  all  other 
Chriftians  in  the  world,  at  the  rate  of  **aii 
hundred,  or  even  a  thoufand,  fold,  in  num- 
bers, talents,  weight  of  charader,  and  in  piety;'* 
yet,  if  you  have  never  been  received  by  the 
vifible  church,  you  are  not  members  of  her, 
unlefs  you  have  made  yourfelves  fo.  This  you 
have  not  done,  for  you  refufe,  or  neglecl,  to 
fubmit  to  baptifm,  without  which  no  perfon 
can  be  a  vifible  member  of  the  kingdom. 

You  hence  fee,  that  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  truth  will  not  fufFer  us  to  admit  you  to 
communion,  unlefs  we  bh^t  out  one  of  her  mod 
ancient  and  perpetual  infcriptions,  which  you 
will  not  fay  we  have  authority  to  do  ;  nor  will 
you  maintain  that  we  have  liberty  to  infert 
any  new  infcriptlon  of  our  own  invention. 
If  we  have  not,  we  appear  not  only  juftified  in 
having  refufed  to  communicate  with  you,  but 
are  obliged  uo  continue  the  practice. 

Your  argument  from  numbers,  talents, 
weight  of  character,  and  piety,  together  with 
all  tne  fpiritual  favours,  which  Heaven  hath 
very  mercifully  afibrded  your  denomination. 


$6  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

hath  nothing  to  do  with  the  queftion  about 
clofe  communion.  Piety  of  heart  is  the  fepa- 
rating  and  perfect  line  of  divifion  between  the 
invijible  church  of  Chrift  and  the  men  of  this 
world.  But  it  is  action^  it  is  obedience  viftble^  it 
is  keeping  the  ordinances  of  Chrift  as  he  hath 
delivered  tbem,  which  marks  the  diftinclion 
between  the  viable  church  and  all  the  world 
befides. 

Though  our  efteem  of  your  every  virtue 
and  excellency,  were  an  hundred  fold  greater 
than  what  you  entertain  of  yourfelves,  yet  we 
could  not  communicate  witli  you  at  the  Lord's 
table,  without  violating  the  firft  infcription, 
relating  to  the  prefent  fubjecl,  on  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth.  No,  we  cannot 
communiv:ate  with  vou,  without  breakinsj 
down  the  hedge  with  which  Chrift  hath  in- 
clofed  his  vilible  people.  Thofe  who  do  this, 
remove  the  land-mark  of  the  King  of  Ifrael: 
and  nev^er  did  we  know  either  minifter  or 
church  greatly  enlarged,  whilft  incautiouily 
praclifing  this  high  offence. 

Dear  Sir,  your  denomination  ought  to  un- 
derftand  this  matter  a  little  better,  before  they 
criminate  the  Baptifts,  as  they  have  too  often 
done. 

VI.  We  have  another  argument,  which  hath 
fome  weight  in  our  minds,  and  which,  when 
maturely  confidered,  may  not  be  thought  of 
very  fmall  moment,  even  by  good  people  of 
your  own  denomination.  The  argument  is 
founded  upon  the  following  propofition. 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  ^y 

We  cannot  admit  you  to  the  commemorative 
ordinance  of  the  fupper,  without  being  guilty 
of  practical  falfehood. 

By  admitting  you  we  muft  practically  fay, 

Either,  Jir/^ — That  you  are  baptized,  when 
we  have  abundant  evidence  to  the  contrary. 

Or,  fscond — That  you  belong  to  the  vifible 
church,  though  not  baptized,  when  we,  at  the 
fame  time,  fmcerely  believe  that  no  unbaptized 
perfon  ever  did  belong  to  it,  or  can. 

Or,  third — That  your  believing  yourfelves  to 
be  baptized,  and  in  the  church,  gives  you  a 
right  to  the  ordinance,  when  our  fettled  judg- 
ment is,  that  our  fpeculative  faith  in  this  mat- 
ter doth  not  in  the  leaft  determine  our  right, 
but  that  fubmiflion  to  gofpel  and  expreis  in- 
junctions, is  the  only  thing  which  can  of  right 
procure  admiflion. 

Or,  lajily — That  the  participation  of  the 
Lord's  fupper  doth  not  belong  exclufively  to 
the  members  of  the  vifible  church,  but  may, 
without  fault,  be  adminillered  to  others  j  vvhilft 
our  judgment  is  juft  the  reverfe. 

Now,  dear  Sir,  can  you,  or  can  any  of  your 
denomination,  give  full  evidence  in  favour  of 
either  of  thefe  difficult  caf:?s  ?  Can  you  fhow, 
indubitably  fhow,  either,  Jirjl^  That  you  are 
baptized  ?  or,  fccond.  That  you  belong  to  the 
vifible  church,  though  not  baptized  ?  or,  thirds 
That  your  believing  yourfelves  to  be  baptized, 
and  in  the  church,  gives  you  a  right  to  the 
ordinance  ?  or,  lajlly,  rhat  the  participation  of 
the  Lord's  fupper  doth  not  belong  exclufively 
to  the  vifible  church,  but  may,  without  fault, 
be  adminiftered  to  others  ? 


58  Letters  oh  Opeti  Ccimnunhn, 

By  eftahlifliing  either  of  thefe  queftions  in 
your  favour,  you  will  do  much  towards  reliev- 
ing our  minds,  and  the  clearing  of  tiie  road  to 
our  mutual  fcUowflMp  at  the  table.  But  till 
fome  one  of  thefe  obftacles  be  removed,  it  is 
beyond  our  power  to  communicate  with  \  tu, 
without  fuflaining  the  guilt  of  praclical  faife- 
hood.  Do  you  wifli  us  to  be  thus  guilty  ? 
and  would  you  communicate  with  us,  whilft 
our  faith  and  practice  are,  at  the  moment, 
giving  each  other  the  lie  ?  If  you  would  not, 
then  remove  our  difficulty,  or  ceafe  to  blame 
us  for  confiftency. 

We  will,  at  this  time,  trouble  you  with  but 
one  thing  more,  which  we  call  an  argument, 
and  that  is, 

VII.  Our  general  and  lad  argument,  which 
we  draw  from  the  confideration,  that  all  the 
light  and  evidence  which  there  is  upon  the 
fubjecl  in  debate,  is  in  favour  of  our  practice. 

The  order  of  the  houfe  of  God,  which  ChriO; 
in  a  very  Ihort  but  comprehenfive  manner, 
pointed  out  in  the  commiflion  which  he  gave 
to  his  difciples,  is  in  our  favour.  Here  the 
initiating  ordinance,  baptifm,  is  next  to  follov/ 
after  being  difcipled,  or  believing. 

All  which  we  know  of  the  practice  of  the 
apoftles,  goes  to  our  juftification. 

The  church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth,  from  the  apoitles*  day  to  our*s,  faith, 
that  if  our  faith  be  correct  as  to  your  relation 
with  the  church,  our  practice  is  fo  too.  Be- 
iides,  the  faith  and  practice  of  your  own  de- 
nomination, with  refpect  to  fprinkling,  which 


Letters  on  Open  Cofumunion.  59 

you  call  baptlfm,  condemns  you,  utterly  con- 
demns you,  for  your  inconfiftent  and  unreafon- 
able  pra<5lice,  in  cenfuring  us  in  the  article  of 
clofe  communion.  You  generally  hold  that 
fprinkling,  which  you  term  baptiim,  is  a  di- 
vinely appointed  pre-requilite  to  communion  ; 
yet  you,  contrary  from  every  principle  of 
reafon,  dare  publickly,  feverely  and  conltantly 
to  reproach  us  for  holding,  that  the  divinely 
appointed  rite  of  being  buried  with  Chrift  in 
baptifm,  is  a  gofpel  pre-requifite  to  the  com- 
munion table.  Every  perfon,  who  looks  at 
this  fubject  with  difmterefted  difcernment, 
muft  know,  and  cannot  help  knowing,  that 
you  condemn  yourfelves  in  the  things  which 
you  allow. 

Befides,  Sir,  you  are  not  only  inconfiftent 
with  yourfelves,  and  condemn  yourfelves  in 
condemning  us,  but  you  ad:  the  part  of  cruelty 
tovk^ards  us.  You  will  not,  or  you  cannot, 
rectify  our  judgment,  or  fliow  us  by  divine 
precept,  or  even  by  your  own  general  example. 
how  we  may  comply  with  your  demands,  with- 
out guilt;  andyetyoufay  very  hard  things  of  us, 
for  pradifiRg  according  to  our  beft  judgment. 

Had  we  not  a  much  better  opinion  of  other 
parts  of  your  conduct,  than  we  have  of  your 
management  of  this  controverfy,  we  fhould  be 
obliged  to  coniider  you  as  being  unreafonable 
and  wicked  men. 

We  pray  you,  Sir.  and  your  denomination, 
either  be  a  little  more  fparing  of  your  hard 
fpeeches  and  praftices,  or  a  little  more  liberal 
in  your  evidence.     You  come  forward  with 


Co  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 

dark,  dubious  and  inconclufive  evidence,  if  it 
may  be  termed  evidence  at  all,  and  then  fpeak 
with  as  much  alTurance,  and  treat  us  with  as 
little  civility,  as  would  become  you,  were  your 
caufe  as  evident  as  any  proportion  in  Euclid, 
or  as  though  it  had  received  mathematical  de- 
monftration.  Such  practice  is  a  blot  in  the 
general  good  character  of  your  denomination. 
If  our  numbers  be  not  great,  if  our  talents  be 
not  brilliant,  if  our  piety  be  fmall,  and  our 
character  low,  we  pray  you.  Sir,  allow  us  of 
each,  the  little  which  belongs  to  us ;  at  leaft, 
ceafe  to  condemn  us,  till  your  evidence  againft 
us  will  bear  examination.  You  know.  Sir, 
that  the  judgment  is  not  fo  eafily  prevailed 
upon  by  hard  words,  as  by  hard  arguments. 


LETTER   VII. 

Open  Communion  with  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances 
as  Chrijl  delivered  them  to  the  Saints  ;  and  Clofe 
Conwiunion  to  all  others. 

DEAR    SIRj 

JNo  perfon  can  read  your  letters  with 
critical  obfervation,  but  muft  receive  convidion 
that  you  would  confent  to  peace  amongft  breth- 
ren upon  your  own  terms.  It  is  equally  diffi- 
cult lor  any  perfon  who  underftands  the  prefent 
controverfy,  to  avoid  feeing  that  you  have 
miftaken  the  means,  or  mifapplied  them. 


Letters  on  Open  Commtmion,  6i 

When  two  parties  are  at  variance,  and  both 
fauhy,  the  wife  arbiters  of  the  difpute  will 
inquire  into  the  merits  or  demerits  of  both,  and 
affix  blame  according  to  the  fault  of  each.  This 
method  of  management  tends  to  bring  both  to 
a  compromife.  But  to  charge  all  the  blame  on 
one  party,  and  to  excufe,  wholly  toexcufe,  the 
party  which  had  the  principal  hand  in  begin- 
ning and  in  prolonging  the  evil  which  is  inju- 
rious to  both,  tends  directly  to  widen  the 
breach,  inftead  of  fettling  the  difpute. 

Whilft  I  am  obliged  to  fay  uncomfortable 
things  to  you,  I  wifh  to  intermix  them  with 
kindnefs  ;  for  I  verily  believe,  that  when  you 
were  writing  your  letters,  your  wilh  was  better 
than  your  profefTed  object  was  good,  or  your 
arguments  applicable. 

Your  pamphlet  hath  gone  through  more 
than  three  feveral  readings,  yet  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  the  author  of  it  ever  comprehended 
the  origin  of  the  evil,  or  who  were  the  blama- 
ble  parties  in  this  debate.  Had  you,  dear  Sir, 
poffelTed  a  clear  view  of  the  controverfy,  and 
wiflied  to  fettle  it,  you  would  have  avoided 
both  Scylla  and  Charybdis :  you  would  not 
have  condemned  the  innocent,  and  by  your 
arguments  proved  that  you  could  not  find 
them  guilty. 

Your  arguments  would  have  poffefTed  more' 
weight,  and  an  application  infinitely  morejuft, 
had  you  direcled  them  to  your  errino-  breth- 
ren, who  refufe  to  fubmit  to  the  firS  gofpel 
ordinance,  rather  than  to  the  Baptifts  for  not 
admitting  them  to  the  fecond. 


62  Letters  on  Open  Co7nmumon, 

The  origin  of  the  ftrife  between  you  and  us 
is,  your  judging  and  fetting  at  naught  Chrift*s 
ordinance  of  baptifm.  If  thofe  who  firft  com- 
mit an  evil,  and  who,  againil  revelation,  and 
contrary  from  the  law  of  love,  perfevere  with 
hardnefs  in  their  evil,  be  blamable  for  the 
neceflfary  evil  confequences,  then  is  the  evil  of 
which  you  fo  grievoufly  coniplain,  to  be  laid 
at  your  own  door.  After  you  and  your  breth- 
ren fhall  have  troubled  the  public  with  a  num- 
ber of  fels  of  inconclufive  arguments,  you  will 
be  compelled  to  yield  the  point,  and  acknowl- 
edge the  fault  your  own.  You  are  now,  from 
time  to  time,  driven  into  confiderable  diilicul- 
ties,  and  as  light  fhall  increafe,  you  will  be  ftill 
more  clofely  driven. 

At  one  time  you  are  for  having  a  very  clofe 
and  intimate  agreement  and  intercourfe  with  the 
Baptifts,favein  theordinanceof  baptifm.  Again, 
you  are  for  renouncing  the  Baptifts  altogether, 
becaufe  they  have  an  exception  with  refpect  to 
the  ordinance  of  the  fupper.  You  have  llill  an- 
other expedient,  by  which  you  would  put  the 
Baptifts  to  difiiculty.  Many  of  your  denomi- 
nation begin  of  late  to  inform  the  public,  that 
you  could  comm.une  with  unbaptized  believ- 
ers. Yes,  in  direct  oppofition  to  Mofes,  in 
whom  ye  trufl,  and  contrary  from  every  pre- 
cept and  example  on  the  point,  in  the  New 
Teftament,  you  could  commune  at  the  Lord's 
table  with  perfons  who  had  not  been  baptized. 
In  ihort,  your  denomination,  or  at  leaft  fome  of 
them,  are  willing,  and  they  are  rather  pleafed 
with  their  willingnefs,  to  break  through  both 
law  and  go/pel  to  oppofe  the  Baptiils. 


Letters  on  Open  Commumon.  6t^ 

In  this  letter  I  thought  to  have  taken  your 
arguments,  at  leaft  a  number  of  them,  if  not 
all  of  them,  one  by  one,  and  fhown  you  as  well 
as  I  could,  that  whatever  llrength  they  polTefs 
goes  to  the  weakening  of  your  caufe,  and  urges 
your  repentance.  But  my  object  may  be  per- 
haps as  fully,  and  at  the  fame  time  more  eahly, 
accomplilhed,  by  turning  againft  you  your  iiril 
and  principal  argument,  together  Vith  your 
laft:  and  mod  fevere  one. 

Your  firft  argument,  which  you  almoft  con- 
ftantly  put  in  the  front,  and  which  you  con- 
lider  your  chief  defence,  and  moft  ellicacious 
mean  by  which  to  overturn  the  caufe  of  your 
opponents,  is,  the  church  of  the  living  God  is 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  rhe  truth.  This  very 
argument,  next  to  the  word  of  God,  is  the  moil 
powerful  enemy  with  which  your  caufe  hath  to 
contend.  Had  you  but  examined  this  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth  with  any  conhdera- 
ble  exa(51:nefs,  you  would  never  have  meddled 
with  it  in  favour  of  the  Predorantiits.  It  is 
indeed  an  edge  tool,  which  cuts  your  caufe  all 
to  pieces.  All  the  ftrength  it  has,  is  wholly 
againft  you,  and  for  the  Baptiils.  Only  allow 
this  argument  perfect,  and  your  caufe  is  to- 
tally loll,  and  our's  completely  won.  For  the 
church,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth, 
wholly  juftities  us  at  your  expenfe.  I'race 
this  argument  where,  and  as  long  as  you 
pleafe,  and  you  cannot  find  a  century,  from 
the  beginning  of  Chriftianity,  in  which  it  does 
not,  as  far  as  it  has  ftrength,  put  your  cauleto 
iilence. 


^4  Letters  on  Open  Communion, 

Your  laft  and  moft  fevere  argument  is, 
"  Clofe  Communion  makes  a  fchifm  in  the 
church,  is  without  and  contrary  to  Scripture, 
and  is  in  direct  oppofition  to  the  fpirit  of 
brotherly  love  in  the  pious  brethren  among 
the  Baptiib." 

My  anfvver  is  this — It  is  your  clofe  commu- 
nion, or  your  refufing  to  commune  in  the  gof- 
pel  ordinance  of  baptifm,  which  makes  a  fchifm 
among  the  children  of  God,  and  is  the  occa- 
(ion  of  all  the  prefent  controverfy  ;  and  which 
alfo  occaiions  an  ocean  of  hard  and  ungenerous 
feelings,  which  your  denomination  exercife 
toward  thofe  who  keep  the  ordinances  as  our 
Saviour  exprefsly  commanded.  This  praiflice 
of  your's  is  without  Scripture  ;  you  have  not  a 
text  which  fpeaks  of  baptifm,  from  Genefis  to 
Revelation,  which  fays  a  word  to  juftify  your 
traditionary  practice  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm. 
There  is  no  fuch  meaning  to  the  word  bap- 
tifm in  all  the  Bible,  as  you  have  given  it  by 
your  practice.  By  your  refufing  to  adminifter 
baptifm  as  Jefus  Chrift  commands  all  his  ad- 
miniftrators  to  do,  you  continue  a  ftrife  among 
brethren.  In  this  you  go  without  Scripture, 
and  yet  conftantly  contend  with  us,  becaufe 
we  will  not  put  our  hands  to,  to  juftify  this 
your  unfcriptural  pradice.  You  not  only  go 
without  Scripture,  but  in  the  very  face  of  the 
plain,  literal  and  common  fenfe  of  Scripture. 
Every  command  in  the  Bible  which  relates  to 
the  fubject  of  baptifm,  commands  you  to  ceafe 
from  your  oppoiition,  and  from  your  anti-fcrip- 
tural  practice.     But  inftead  of  hearkening  to 


Letters  on  Gpen  Coinmunion,  ^S 

tTie  plain  word  of  the  Loud,  you  attend  to 
thofe  who  have  wrefted  the  truth  of  God  to 
fupport  a  fentiment  which  your  forefathers  in- 
cautioufly  imbibed.  Not  only  fo,  but  many 
of  your  denomination  treat  us  with  great  dif- 
refpect  for  the  exertions  which  we  make  to 
hold  the  light  of  truth  before  them.  This  op- 
pofition  of  your's  againft  us,  and  this  your  un- 
fcriptural  and  anti-fcriptural  practice  "  is  in 
direct  oppofition  to  the  fpirit  of  brotherly  love' 
in  the  pious  brethren  among  the'*  Paedorantifts. 
For  evidence  I  need  but  mention  what  your  de- 
nomination,in  many  places,  well  know, and  what 
is  abundantly  vifible  in  this  place.  Within  about 
two  months,  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  of 
your  denomination  have  publickly  renounced 
tJieir  former  traditionary  practice,  and  have 
been  baptized ;  and  many  more  in  this  vicini- 
ty, as  weir  as  in  this  town,  have  fentimentally 
given  up  the  Pasdorantift  caufe,  and  expecf  to 
join  publickly  the  Lord's  defpifed  people  of  bap- 
tized believers. 

Befides  your  practice  ht\n^  ivitboiit  and^^/?/?- 
trary  from  Scripture,  it  is,  in  its  own  nature^  in- 
direct oppofition  to  the  fpirit  of  brotherly  love 
in  the  pious  of  your  own  denomination. 

Wilhing;  you  and  your  brethren  much  light, 
and  more  grace,  that  you  and  they  may  no  lon-- 
ger  contend  againft  thofa  who  are  contending, 
earneftly  for  the  truth, ■ 

Lam  afFe<ftionateiy.  your's* • 

F  2- 


66  Letters  on  Open  Communion. 


LETTER   VIII. 

Oj>en  Communion  to  all  who  keep  the  Ordinances  as 
Chriji  delivered  them  to  the  Saints  i  and  Clofe 
Cojnmunion  to  all  who  vAll  not,  t 

MY     D  F.  A  R     SIR,. 

\jO  your  denomination  fpeak  fenti- 
mentally,  or  is  it  to  drive  us  into  a  corner,  that 
they  tell  us  that  baptifm  is  as  much  a  pre- 
requifite  for  pulpit  communion,  and  praying 
communion,  or  even  for  communion  in  Chrif- 
tian  conference,  as  it  is  for  the  Lord's  table  ? 

Communion  in  Chriftian  conference  we  muft 
have,  to  obtain  evidence  that  perfons  are  fit 
fubjecls  of  baptifm,  and  as  Peter  had  with  Cor- 
nehus  and  his  friends.  Acts  x. 

Communion  in  prayer  we  may  have  with 
the  godly,  though  they  be  not  baptized,  as 
Paul  had  with  the  praying  women,  befide  the 
river,  at  Philippi.    Acts  xvi. 

If  the  firft  converts  at  Ephefus,  who  appear 
to  have  been  converted  under  the  preaching  of 
Apollos,  were  baptized  by  him  unto  John's 
baptifm,  and  were  afterwards  bapiized  by  fome 
of  Paul's  companions,  as  you  feem  to  believe 
they  were  ;  then  we  have  here  a  fair  and  full 
Scripture  example  of  pulpit  communion  with 
a  perfon  as  a  preacher,  who  had,  if  you  are 
correftj  not  been  the  fubjeft  of  gofpel  baptifm 
himfelf.  Prifcilla  and  Aquila,  two  eminent 
Chriftians,  had  this  communion  with  Apollos, 
and  afterwards  took  him  and  expounded  to 


Letters  en  Open  Communion.  67 

him  the  way  of  God  more  perfeclly.  A6ls 
xviii.  and  xix.* 

Here,  Sir,  are,  upon  your  own  principles, 
famples  of  divers  kinds  of  Chriftian  commu- 
nion with  unbaptized  perfons.  If  you  Vv^ill  now 
point  us  to  an  example  of  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  an  unbaptized  perfon,  then 
will  your  fentiment,  for  aught  which  hath  yet 
been  faid,  appear  juft  ;  that  "  baptif'm  is  as 
much  a  pre-requifite  for  pulpit  communion  as 
for  table  communion."! 

But  fuppofe  we  are  as  inconfiftent  as  you 
would  have  us  believed  to  be,  this  does  not 
fairly  go  to  your  account,  but  is  to  be  fet  down 
in  our  favour,  as  evidence  that  we  defire  to 
condefcend,  and  communicate  in  every  thing 
which  is  not  ftriclly  unlawful ;  that  we  would 
gladly  walk  together  fo  far  as  we  have  attained. 

It  is  poflible,  that  your  denomination  may 
fo  mifufe  their  Baptift  brethren,  that  it  will 
not  be  expedient  for  them  to  do  what  might 
otherwife  be  lawful ;  but  they  wifh  not  to  be 
the  aggreffors.  If  you  mifufe  us  for  holding 
and  vindicating  the  caufe  of  our  fuffering  High- 
Frieji,  we  defire  every  where,  and  on  all  occa- 
fions,  to  manifeft  towards  you  his  condefcend- 
ing  and  lamb-like  temper. 

Though  we  be,  in  fome  inftances,  obliged  to 
rebuke  you  fharply,  yet  we  wilh  to  do  it  kind. 

*  We  believe  that  John's  baptifm,  while  adminiflered  by  himfelf 
and  others,  before  Chrift  gave  the  baptizing  commiflion,  was  gofpel 
baptifm ;  but  we  cannot  think  that  any  had  a  right  afterwards  to 
baptize  by  John's  authority,  or  what  might  in  this  fenfe  be  called 
John's  baptifm. 

t  Page  24. 


63  Letters  on  Open  Ccmmunion, 

ly,  and  in  this  way  gain  you  to  the  knowledge 
and  practice  of  gofpel  order, 

A  fomewhat  general  idea, which  runs  through 
your  letters,  ought  to  be  noticed  fomewhere, 
perhaps  as  well  here  as  any  where.     It  is  this  ; 

"  If  the  Baptifts  only  be  the  vifible  church, 
then  God  hath  generally,  at  leaft  for  feveral 
hundred  years,  gone  out  of  the  church,  and  in- 
to the  world,  or  into  the  branches  of  the  cor- 
rupt church  of  Rome,  for  inftruments  to  main- 
tain the  truth,  and  to  carry  on  his  defigjis  of 
grace  in  the  world.** 

Anfivsr.  If  the  Baptifts  only  be  the  vifible 
diurch,  then  hath  God  chofen  many  inftru- 
ments, out  of  the  vifibiC  church,  and  in  the  in- 
viftble  church,  for  the  defence  of  the  truth,  and- 
£or  the  converfion  of  fmners.  This  is  juftk 
what  we  believe.  Not  that  the  good  people  of 
your  denomination  are,  ftriclly  fpeaking,  in  the 
world,  but  in  the  invifible  church,  or  kingdom 
of  Chrift,  and  prepared  bcariily,  but  not  fenti- 
mentally,  for  the  vifible  church.  We  believe 
that  your  denomination  have  many  excellent 
workmen  on  the  mountains  of  Ifrael  ;  and  if  I. 
may,  without  giving  offence,  I  will  mention  2.- 
iimilitude  to  iiiuftrate  my  fentiment  in  this  cafe. 

King  Solomon,  a  type  of  Chrift,  was  prepar- 
ing materials  for  the  Lord's  temple,  at  jerufa- 
lem.  He  had  need  of  timber  of  cedar  and  of 
fir  from  Lebanon,  and  of  ftones  to  be  hewn  in 
the  mountains.  But  there  were  none  hke  the 
Sidonians  for  this  bufinefs.  Thefe  therefore 
were  employed,  ajid  wrought  with  the  fervants 
of  king  Solomon.    Thefe  Sidoiiians  were  hon« 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  6g 

ourable  men  ;  they  were  treated  honourably  ; 
they  had  intercourfe  with  the  Jews  ;  they  had 
communion  in  their  common  labour,  for  Solo- 
mon's builders  and  Hiram's  builders  did  hew 
the  flones  and  the  timber.*  Another  thing 
fhould  be  particularly  noted.  Thefe  Sidonians 
had  full  liberty  to  commune  with  Solomon's 
fervants,  in  every  part  of  their  religion,  but 
they  muft  come  according  to  the  prefcribed 
order.  The  fanctuary  of  the  people  was  con- 
tinually open,  and  any  one  who  chofe  might 
come  into  it,  and  offer  facrifices  and  eat  there- 
of ;  the  Sidonians  as  freely  as  any.  But  there 
were  neceflkry  pre-requifites.  They  muft  not 
only  make  profeffion  of  the  Jews'  religion,  but 
they  muft  be  circumcifed,  and  incorporated 
into  the  body  of  the  Jews.f 

The  application  is  not  diiBcuIt. 

Another  fentiment,  or  affertion  not  proved, 
which  you  advance,  page  2 1 ,  muft  have  a  mo- 
ment's attention.  Speaking  of  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  and  of  the  latter  being  baptized  of 
the  former,  you  exprefs  yourfelf  in  the  follow- 
ing words : 

"  As  to  the  mode  of  the  eunuch's  baptifm, 
this  verfe  is  lilent.  On  the  ground  of  this  and 
a  few  other  difputed  verfes,  the  Baptifts  fet 
themfelves  againft  the  great  promifes  of  God, 
and  the  works  of  his  grace  in  our  churches, 
and  exalt  themfelves  in  oppofition." 

Now,  Sir,  were  it  not  that  you  too  often 
come  forward  with  too  bold,  unqualified  and 
unfupported  affertions,  we  (hould  not  crowd 

*  X  Kings  V.  i  Exod.  xii.  48, 


yo  Letters  en  Open  Communion, 

you  fo  hard,  as  we  are  compelled,  in  fome  in- 
flances,  to  do. 

Had  you  known,  that  the  word  of  God, 
though  it  ufes  two  very  fignificant  figures,  of 
fynonymous  import,  burying  "xnd  plantings  to  fix 
the  effential  mode  of  bapiifm,  yet  never  men- 
tions any  other  mode,  and  that  there  is  no 
other  mode  to  it,  fave  accidental  modes,  which 
it  would  be  trifling  to  name,  you  would  not 
have  faid,  that  "  as  to  the  mode  of  the  eunuch's 
baptifm,  this  verfe  is  filent.'* 

Whenever  any  being  or  action  is  mentioned, 
the  eflential  mode  of  it  is  mentioned  by  impli- 
cation. Your  manner  of  exprellion  tends  to 
miflead  the  ignorant  and  inattentive. 

But  the  following  part  of  the  pailage  quoted 
is  ftill  much  more  exceptionable.  "  On  the 
ground  of  this  (fay  you)  and  a  few  other  dif- 
puted  verfes,  the  Baptiils  fet  themfelves  againft 
the  great  promifes  of  God." 

My  dear  Sir,  you  could  hardly  have  miffed 
the  truth  more  fully  than  you  have  here  done. 
We  do  not  reft  the  matter  of  baptifm  on  2ifew 
difpiited  texts,  but  we  reft  it  where  the  Scrip- 
tures reft  it ;  on  all  the  texts,  and  every  text, 
in  which  the  Bible  fpeaks  of  the  fubjecf.  We 
take  the  whole  colledively,  and  every  one  in- 
dividually, and  find  that  every  one,  and  the 
whole,  are  plainly  and  literally,  implicitly  and 
exegetically,  in  our  favour ;  and  that  juft  the 
contrary  is  the  cafe  with  you,  in  this  article' of 
baptifm.  Your  denomination  have  not  ftiown 
us,  and  we  fufped  they  cannot  {how  us,  that 
they  have  plain  evidence^  injplied  evidence,  or 


Letters  on  Open  Communion.  yi 

exegetical  evidence,  or  any  other  fair  evidence, 
that  fpriijkling  ever  was,  is  now,  or  ever  will 
be,  gofpel  baptifm. 

Not  a  (ingle  text  of  Scripture^  where  baptifm 
is  mentioned,  hath  fo  much  as  a  fingle  fliade  of 
likenefs  to  your  pra(5lice.  The  Psedobaptills 
have  abundantly  confelTed  and  defended  this. 
Some  of  the  mod  learned  of  your  own  denom- 
ination have  made  iiuiilar  confeffions  ;  and  all 
of  your  denomination,  who  have  written  upon 
the  fubjecl,  have  either  confeffed  that  the  gof- 
pel and  apoftolic  praclice  was  immerfion,  or 
have,  by  their  inconclufive  arguments,  proved 
that  they  were  not  able,  from  Scripture,  to 
fupport  your  practice.  Their  arguments  from 
the  7th  of  Mark,  i  \  th  of  Luke,  and  9tli  of 
Hebrews,  all  fail ;  not  one  of  them,  nor  all  put 
together,  have  links  enough  to  make  a  chain, 
which  will  reach  from  fprinkling  to  gofpel  bap- 
tifm, fo  as  to  prove  them  one.  Till  you  can 
do  this,  which  none  have  done,  your  hardnefs 
againft  the  Baptifts  does  not  appear  either  can- 
did or  Chrillian.  Your  denomination  have, 
many  a  time,  faid  many  ingenious  and  good 
things  ;  but  things  however  ingenious  and 
good,  if  they  do  not  relate  to  the  queftion  di- 
redly,  do  not  urge  conviction,  like  iblid  argu- 
ments, full  to  the  point.  In  your  letters,  you 
have,  on  the  queOions  debated,  faid  many  good 
things,  many  plaulible  things,  and  fome  things 
rather  too  fevere  ;  but  where  have  you  faid 
one  conclufive  thing  ? 

I  will  here  fet  before  you  a  fliort  fample  of 
your  argumentation  j  and,  by  a  long  acquaint- 


72  Letters  on  Open  Conununion, 

ance  with  you,  I  know  you  to  be  a  man  of 
fenfe,  when  you  take  the  right  fide  of  a  quef- 
tion  ;  and  therefore  prefume,  that  when  your 
reafoning  is  expofed,  you  can  fee  its  weaknefs. 

The  particular  fample  to  which  I  wifh  your 
attention  as  a  critic,  is  page  27,  in  the  words 
following  : 

*'  The  parable  of  the  ten  virgins  ive  fuppofe 
exhibits  the  general  ftate  of  religion,  both  in 
the  Paedobaptift  and  Baptift  churches  ;  and 
Chrift  hath  fellowfhip  with  both,  fo  far  as  they 
walk  in  the  path  of  the  juft.  And  hence  it  is 
an  undeniable  inference^  that  in  imitation  of 
Chrift,  they  fhould  walk  as  brethren,  and  live 
in  fellowfhip,  as  churches  of  equal  ftanding  in 
Chrift/' 

Here,  Sir,  contrary  from  all  logical  or  rea- 
fonable  argumentation,  you  have  a  doubtful 
major,  and  particular  minor,  and  an  undeniable 
and  univerfal  conclufion.  Such  reafoning  as  this 
cannot  be  admitted  in  a  cafe  fo  important  as  the 
prefent.  You  fay,  we  fuppofe  ;  but  how  does  an 
undeniable  inference  follow,  from  a  bare  fuppoli- 
tion  ?  You  again  fay,  "  Chrift  hath  fellowftiip 
with  both,  fo  far  as  they  walk  in  the  path  of 
the  juft."  But  ftill,  how  does  your  z/W^«/^?^/? 
and  univerfal  inference  follow,  that  the  Bap- 
tifts  and  Paedorantifts  fiiould  live  in  fellowftiip, 
as  churches  of  equal  ftanding  in  Chrift  ? 

We  would.  Sir,  were  it  to  your  advantage, 
willingly  grant, that  both  your  major  and  minor 
propofitions  are  true,  as  you  ftate  them,  with 
the  change  0(3,  word,  focieties  for  churches  ;  but 
ftill  they  have  no  connexion  with  your  undeni- 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  73. 

able  Inference.  For,  fuppofing  the  parable  of 
the  virgins  exhibits  the  ilate  ot"  religion  in  both 
denominations,  and  Chrifl;  walks  with  both,  fo 
{it  as  they  walk  in  the  path  of  the  jull,  how- 
does  this  prove,  that  you  walk  in  the  path  of 
the  juft,  as  members  of  the  vifible  church  ? 
Or  that  we  fliould  have  fellovv^fhip  with  you, 
as  churches  of  equal  ftanding  in  Chrift  ? 

Were  it  not  for  hurting  your  feelings,  and 
wailing  time,  you  could  be  prefented  with 
many  famplcs  of  fomicwhat  fimilar  argumenta- 
tion, from  divers  parts  of  your  pamphlet,  if 
not  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  it. 

We  do  not,  however,  fo  much  complain  of 
your  arguments,  as  we  do  of  the  hard  applica- 
tion which  you  make  of  them. 

What  feems  moil  unreafonable,  and,  in  our 
judgment,  a  fpecies  of  religious  cruelty,  is,  that 
by  fuch  fallacious  arguments,  you  would  drive 
us  from  our  duty,  and  compel  us  to  juftify 
your  departure  from  the  fdith  of  gofpel  bap- 
tifrn  ;  or  elfc  ftigmatize  us  to  the  world  as 
bigots,  fchifmatics,  and  as  perfons,  who  fet 
themfelves  againft  God  and  the  churches. 
Such  ufage  is  not  good  from  any  man,  worfe 
from  a  Chriitian  man,  and  woril  of  ail  from  a 
ChrilHan  miniiler. 

We  are  willing  you  (Iiould  prove  us  guilty, 
if  you  can  ;  for  truth,  and  not  viclory,  is  what 
we  feek.  But  to  be  condemned  without  evi- 
dence, or  by  fuborned  evidence,  is  what  we 
f]\all  not  tacitly  fubmit  to. 

In  page  33,  you  aflert,  "  On  the  article  of 
clofe  communion,  the  Baptifts  acl  without  and 

G 


74  Letters  on  Open  Communioji. 

in  oppofuion  to  the  Scripture  ;  they  judge 
their  brethren,  they  fet  at  naught  their  breth- 
ren." 

Thefe  are  hard  accufations,  which  you  are 
not  able  to  prove. 

In  page  34,  you  tell  us,  that  the  Psedobap- 
tifts,  as  well  as  the  Baptifts,  hold  to  believers* 
baptifm. 

Here,  Sir,  you  miftake,  and  your  words 
might  communicate  to  many  an  unjuft  idea. 

You  know,  if  you  reflect  a  moment,  that 
neither  thePaedobaptifts,  nor  the  Paedorantifts, 
hold  to  believers'  baptifm.  You  hold  to  this, 
that  a  believer  may  be  fprinkled,  or  even  bap- 
tized, if  he  have  not  been  fprinkled  before  : 
but  you  hold  to  no  fuch  idea,  that  perfons 
Ihould  believe,  before  they  be  baptized  ;  which 
is  the  precife  idea  of  believers'  baptifm. 

In  the  fame  page,  at  tlie  bottom,  you  begin 
another  very  general  aflertion.  "  On  thefe 
two  queflions,"  (i.  e.  believers'  children  the 
fubjecls,  and  Iprinkling  the  mode  of  baptifm,) 
"  the  deciflve  weight  of  Scripture  is  againft 
the  Baptifts,  much  the  greater,  and  moft  en- 
lightened part  of  the  true  church  of  God  being 
the  judges." 

Dear  Sir,  nothing  but  want  of  information 
can  fave  your  character,  as  a  man,  and  efpe- 
cially  as  a  Chriftian,  from  the  moft  difagreeable 
imputations,  whilft  you,  as  an  author,  would 
impofe  fuch  unfounded  affertions  upon  the 
public.  I  am  forry  for  you,  as  a  man,  and  as 
an  old  friend  ;  but  when  truth  is  fo  maligned, 
not  only  without  evidence,  but  contrary  from 


Letters  on  Open  Communicn,  75 

evidence,  and  in  the  fcice  of  a  cloud  of 
witnefics,  made  up  "of  all  the  Baptiils,  all 
the  P^dobaptifts,  and  very  many  of  thofc, 
who  practife  infant  fprinkling,  I  cannot  but 
put  in  my  veto  againil  your  indecorous  meth- 
od of  condemning  thofe  v^hom  you  cannot  find 
guilty.  Had  you  mentioned  the  fubjecls  of 
baptifm  only,  your  afferticn  would  have  been 
more  p'auiible. 

Your  laft  letter,  in  which  you  collecl  the 
fubjecfls  of  the  foregoing  letters,  aiTume  the 
great  fubje«5t  of  controverfy  as  prov^ed,  draw 
your  main  inference,and  make  outyour  conclu- 
lion,  is,  if  it  be  pofUble,  more  incoherent,  loofe 
and  exceptionable,  than  any  of  the  preceding. 

From  loofe  arguments  proceed  loofe  evi- 
dence, loofe  inferences,  and  loofe  conclufions. 

After  having  recapitulated  what  you  had 
gone  over,  you  obferve,  p<sge  36,  "  From  th& 
united  influence  of  all  the  above,  I  feel  juftified 
m.ajpuniing  it  z%  proved,  that  clofe  communion 
is  a  pradice  unfcriptural,  unchriftian,  and  of  bad 
tendency  in  the  church  of  God  :  That,  there- 
fore, all  the  friends  of  Zion  ought  to  appear 
againft  it." 

Had  you  proved  either  of  the  above  charges 
which  you  lay  at  the  door  of  clofe  communion, 
you  would  have  done  the  bufinefs.  But,  by 
a/fuming  thefe,  and  an  hundred  more  awful 
charges,  as  being  proved,  does  nothing  but  aug- 
ment the  dif<igreement.  You  have  not,  nor 
are  you  able  to  prove  one  of  your  heavy  alle- 
gations. Or,  to  fay  the  leaft,  we  have  not 
difcernment  enough  to  fee  the  agreement  be- 


"jyd  Lett  en  on  Open   Communion. 

twecn  your  fuppofed  evidence  and  the  charges 
which  you  would  fupport  by  it.  You  have 
loofely  palled  over  many  things,  which  you 
fet  down  for  argument  and  evidence.  But 
where,  we  pray  you,  is  the  point  of  contact 
between  the  evidence  and  the  thing  to  be 
proved  ? 

You  tell  us,  that  "  clofe  communion'*  (/.  e, 
to  refufe  to  commune  with  unbaptized  per- 
fons.)  *' is  unfcriptural."  But  where  is  the 
Scripture  againft  it  ?  Or  where  is  the  Scripture 
which  hath  any  relation  with  the  fubjecl,  and 
is  not  for  it  ?  You  have  noticed  many  texts, 
but  not  one  cf  thenm  fpeaks  againfl  it  directly  ; 
nor  have  you  fliown  us  how  they  do  by  fair 
inriplicaiion.  You  alfo  tell  us,  that  *'  clofe  com- 
munion is  unchriiHan  ;"  but  where  hathChrift, 
cilher  by  precept  or  example,  condemned  the 
practice?  fave  Vvhere  lie  commands  all,  who 
are  difcipled,  to  be  baptized,  which  command 
you  refufe  to  obey.  Your  refufing  obedience 
in  this  particular  occafions  all  the  difficulty. 
Hence  both  the  origin  and  continuance  of  the 
prefcnt  controverfy  is  your  unchriftian  practice. 
If  there  be  any  thing  unchriftian  in  the  princi- 
ple of  the  clofe  communion  practice,  the  un- 
chriftian part  is  not  in  the  Baptifts  for  refufing 
to  admit  you,  but  in  your  negligent  or  fenti- 
inental  difobedience,  in  not  being  prepared  to 
come.  You,  dear  Sir,  and  your  denomination, 
ought  to  feel  fliarply  reproved  for  your  difobe- 
dience, and  efpecially  for  accufmg  your  neigh- 
bours for  the  evils,  v/hich  have  been  procured 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  77 

by  your  own  unchrifiian  conduct,  in  refufing 
the  Chriftian  ordinance  of  bapiifm. 

You  farther  fubjoin,  "  that  clofe  communion 
is  of  bad  tendency  in  the  church  of  God." 
How  fo  ?  It  keeps  none  out  of  the  church,  or 
from  the  communion,  but  the  difobedient. 
Your  confequence,  from  the  whole,  is,  "All  the 
friends  of  Zion  ought  to  appear  againft  clofe 
communion."  Is  this  concluiion  your  real  fen- 
timent,  that  all  the  friends  of  Zion  ought  to 
appear  for  open  communion  with  all  unbaptiz- 
ed  believers  ?  Do  you  wifh  to  blot  out  tlie  or- 
dinance of  baptifm  from  the  page  of  revelation 
and  from  the  remembrance  of  man  ? 

We  wiflh  to  inquire.  How  would  you  have 
all  the  friends  of  Zion  appear  againft  clofe  com- 
munion ?  Would  you  have  them  all  either 
write  or  fpeak  againft  it  ?  This  would  be  of  lit- 
tle fervice,  for  it  is  impollible  to  prove  it  wrong. 

Would  you  have  them  all  praclife  againft  it  ? 
This  few  will  do,  but  fuch  as  are  not  baptized, 
and  they  have  no  authority  to  meddle -with 
the  fubje(fl.  Or^  would  you  have  all  the  friends 
of  Zion  appear  hard,  morofe  and  unchriftian 
towards  all  Baptifts,  who  praclife  clofe  com- 
munion ?  This  no  good  man,  who  underftands 
the  fubjecl,  will  do  ;  and  others,  one  would 
think,  fufliciently  manifeft  this  temper  already. 

Out  of  the  many  unkind  and  unfupported 
propofitions,  in  this  and  the  preceding  letters, 
I  purpofe  to  notice  but  one  more,  and  that  is 
your  main  inference,  "  that  thofe  principles 
are  unfcriptural,  from  which  clofe  communion 
is  inferred  to  be  a  duty." 
G  2 


78  Litters  on  Open  Comnninion^ 

The  principles  from  which  clofe  communion 
is  inferred  as  a  duty,  are, 

1.  Gofpel  baptiim  is  one  thing  only,  and 
that  is,  the  hmncrfion  of  the  ivhok'body  in  water, 
in  the  name  of  the  facred  Three. 

2,  That  no  unbaptized  pcrfon  is  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Lord's  table. 

Now,  Sir,  (liould  thefe  two  principles  {land, 
your  main  inference  muft  fall^  and  fo  muft  your 
main  fubject  too,  and  all  your  arguments,  by 
■which  you  have  laboured  hard  to  fupport  it. 
Hence,  one  of  our  main  inferences  is,  that 
you  (hould  firft  have  removed  thefe  two  prin- 
ciples, or  at  leall:  one  of  them,  before  you  ven- 
tured an  argument  againft  clofe  communion, 
and  then  none  would  have  been  needed  ;  or, 
then  would  the  ground  have  been  cleared,  and 
you  would  have  found  it  an  eafy  talk  to  prove 
the  practice  of  clofe  communion  to  be  "  un- 
fcriptural,  unchriftian,  and  of  bad  tendency  in 
the  church  of  God."  But  as  thefe  principles, 
for  aught  appears,  ftand  uninjured  and  im- 
moveable, your  talk  is  yet  before  you,  and  will 
continue  fo,  till  you  renounce  it,  as  incapable 
of  defence. 

We  do  not  feel^  that  any  one  of  your  argu- 
ments hath  put  either  of  the  above  principles 
to  the  leaft  hazard. 

We  know.  Sir,  you  are  not  obliged  to  give 
us  the  fenfe  of  feeling,  but  if  we  polTefs  it,  it 
moft  certainly  becomes  you  to  make  us  feel  a 
littk:  by  argument,  as  well  as  a  great  deal  by 
hard  and  unfupported  accufations. 


Letters  on  Open  Communi'sn.  jij 

After  I  had  given  your  letter  one  careful 
reading,  I  intended  (as  you  appear  nnanifeilly 
not  to  know  how  much  good  will  the  Baptifts 
have  for  your  denomination,  or  good  opinion 
they  entertain  of  them)  to  have  devoted  one 
whole  letter,  for  the  exprefs  purpofe  of  dating 
the  kind,  friendly  and  liberal  fentiments  and 
aifeclions  of  heart,  which  they  polfefs  towards 
the  Paedorantifts  ;  but  when  1  had  given  them 
two  feveral  readings  more,  your  demands  for 
pre-eminence  and  praile  appeared  to  me  to  be 
io  exorbitant  and  unreafonably  large,  that  I 
fhal]  be  excufed  v/hilft  I  omit  a  ftatement  of 
the  pleahng  and  kind  things,  which  we  have 
felt,  and  may  fometimes  fay,  with  refped:  to  the 
diftinguilhed  and  very  ufeful  denomination  of 
believers,  to  which  you  belong. 

We  now  clofe  our  remarks  on  open  and  on 
clofe  communion,  by  noticing  a  few  inferences 
and  plain  truths. 

I,  Your  denomination  have  been  guilty  of 
a  great  fault ;  and  the  evils  which  neceffarily 
flow  from  it,  you  charge  to  the  account  of  the 
Baptifts  J  than  which,  nothing  can  be  more  un- 
jult  or  ungenerous. 

You  refufe  to  be  baptized  :  this  is  a  great 
fault,  and  committed  againil  the  order  and 
peace  of  Chrift's  church.  The  great  evil, 
which  is  a  neceffary  confequence,  is,  you  muft 
be  treated  as  being  what  you  are,  unbaptized 
perfons.  This  evil,  which  you  bring  upon 
yourlielves,  you  moft  unjuftly  charge  upon  the 
Baptifts,  as  though  fome  bigoted,  fchifmatic  or 


8o  Lett  en  on  Open  Communhn, 

fuperflitious  fentiment  of  their's  were  the  pro- 
curing caufe. 

2.  You  have  taken  a  very  flngular,  and 
what  appears  to  us  ungenerous,  way  to  fettle 
the  difpute. 

In  the  firft  place,  you  charge  us  with  being 
wholly  in  the  fault,  without  producing  one 
good  witncfs  to  prove  us  faulty  at  all ;  and 
then,  fccondly,  would  take  from  us  the  gofpel 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  the  great  evidence  of 
our  innocency,  that  we  might  be  convicted, 
and  fuffer  the  reproach  which  belongs  to  our 
opponents. 

3.  Open  communion  can  never  be  brought 
about  by  the  means  which  you  urge. 

Your  denomination  have  interrupted  the 
communion  of  vifible  believers,  by  a  departure 
fram  the  order  of  Chrill's  houfe.  It  belongs 
to  you  to  reftore  the  communion,  by  conform- 
ing with  the  pattern  given. 

4.  Your  denomination  are  under  every  ob- 
ligation to  clofe  this  controverfy.  You  only 
can  do  it,  and  you  can  do  it  but  In  one  way  ; 
and  that  one  way  is,  obey  the  command  of 
Chrift,  and  be  baptized.  Till  you  do  thus, 
you  {land  convicted  by  two  of  the  moft  credi- 
ble witneffes  ;  one  is  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
other  is  the  church,  which  is  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth. 

5.  The  great  object  of  your  letters,  or  fub- 
je(ft  handled  in  them,  which  is  to  fix  blame 
upon  the  clofe  communion  of  the  Baptifts, 
ftands  condemned  by  the  Baptifts,  the  P<edo- 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  8i 

baptifts,  and  by  your  own  denomination,  as 
well  as  by  the  word  of  God. 

All  of  every  denomination,  fave  a  few  very 
inconfiflent  Ones,  hold  that  no  unbaptized  per- 
fon  is  a  fit  fubjeft  of  communion.  Each  de- 
nomination too,  will  be  their  own  judge,  as  to 
what  is  baptifm.  Should  a  Friend,  a  Quaker, 
make  application,  he  would  not  be  admitted 
by  either  of  the  denominations,  till  he  have 
vcater  applied  in  fome  way,  which  (hall  be  call- 
ed baptifm. 

If  clofe  communion  be  an  error,  It  Is  an  error 
maintained  by  your  own  denomination,  as 
really  as  by  the  Baptifts.  "Why  then  not  fhow 
piety  fnft  at  home  I  Corre*^:  your  own  error 
before  you  fo  warmly  blame  us  for  the  fame. 

6.  The  Paedorantift  minifters  wpuld  a£t  con- 
fiftently  with  theccnr.ir.iuion  which  Chrift  g;iv^ 
his  difciples,  and  with  the  practice  of  the  apof- 
tles,  and  with  the  infcriptions  on  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth,  did  ihty  fpeedily  fub- 
mit  to  baptifm;  and  it  alfo  appears  that  they 
would  aft  confiftently  with  all  thefe,  fhould 
they  refufe  toadminiller  any  gofpel  ordinance 
till  they  Ihall  be  baptized.  Would  they  fhow 
their  condefcenfion,  and  be  fure  to  be  in  "the 
right,  let  the  word  of  God  and  teftimony  of 

,  Jefus  ChriiV,  and  not  the  traditions  of  men,  be 
their  guide  to  gofpel  ordinances   and  gofpel 
.  qualifications. 

7.  Should  yqu.  Sir,  or  any  of  your  denomi- 
nation, fee  caufe  to  write  hereafter  againft  what 
iji  termed  clofe  communion,  you  will  pleafe  to 
bear  in  mind,  that  the  firft  thing  to  be  preyed 


82  Letters  on  Gpen  Communion. 

is,  that  you  have  been  born  of  water,  or  have 
been  the  ilibjects  of  gofpel  baptifm.  This  is 
a]fo  the  fecond  point  to  be  eftablifhed  ;  and  the 
lali  is  the  fame. 

8.  The  reafon  why  you  did  not  prf>ve  clofe 
communion  to  be  an  error^  is  not  your  fault, 
for  the  fubjecl  is  not  capable  of  proof. 

9.  If  gofpel  baptifm  be  immerfion,and  that 
only,  and  gofpel  baptifm  be  ncceifary  to  viable 
church  memberfhip,  and  if  vifible  church  mem- 
berfhip  be  neceffary  to  give  right  to  the  Lord's 
table,  you  may  as  eafily  argue  the  fea  dry,  and 
difpute  mountains  into  mole-hills,  as  to  prove 
your  right  to  the  communion  table.  You  do 
not  know,  nor  can  you  prove,  but  the  above 
hypothefes  are  juft.  If  they  be,  then  you  do 
not  know,  nor  can  you  prove,  that  you  have 
any  gofpel  liberty  to  come  to  the  Lord's  fupper. 
If  you  do  not  know  that  you  have  any  right  to 
come,  if  you  cannot  prove  that  you  have,  and 
if  the  Baptifts  can  fee  no  right  which  you  pof- 
fefs,  then  they  have  no  liberty  to  admit  you  ; 
and  you  act  an  unreafonable  part  in  contending 
with  them  for  refufing  you. 

10.  As  your  denomination,  confiJered  as  a 
religious  feci  in  diftinclion  from  all  other  Chrif- 
tians,  arofe  in  the  hurrying,  troublefome  and 
warring  times  of  the  Reformation  from  Pope- 
ry, it  might  be  your  wifdom,  in  this  day  of 
American  peace  and  liberty  of  thought,  to  re- 
view the  peculiarities  of  your  religious  feci. 
If  your  peculiarities  were,  when  firft  adopted, 
in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures,  they  are  in 
agreement  ftill,  and  doubtlefs  may  be  defended 


Letters  on  Open  Communion,  83 

by  them.  But  if  they  cannpt  be  defended  by 
the  Scriptures,  it  would  be  for  your  honour 
and  profit  to  give  them  up. 

11.  If  the  modern  origin  of  a  religious  fe(^ 
be  of  any  force  again  ft  the  purity  of  their  re- 
ligious tenets, as  your  denomination  have  abun- 
dantly believed  in  their  oppofition  againft  the 
Baptifts ;  then  this  argument  comes  with  its 
full  force,  be  it  more  or  lefs,  againft  your  de- 
nomination, feeing  it  is  found  to  be  of  quite 
modern  date.  At  the  fame  time,  the  Baptifts 
are  without  fault  upon  this  fcore,  they  being 
the  regular  defcendants  of  the  firft  gofpel 
church  founded  in  Judea.* 

12.  The  wife  and  judicious  reader  will 
fearch  for  truth  as  for  hid  treafure,  and  wil- 
lingly receive  it,  though  it  be  to  the  ruin  of  his 
errors. 

Error  makes  the  wifeft  and  beft  of  men  ap- 
pear to  difadvantage  ;  but  truth,  largely  re- 
ceived, makes  them  the  more  profitable  to  men, 
and  acceptable  to  God. 

Laftly.  Wife  men  may  imbibe  errors,  but 
the  foolifh  only  will  retain  them,  when  truth 
Iball  hav^e  fully  expofed  them. 

With  much  affeclien  for  your  perfon,  and 
efteem  for  your  charafter,  I  am,  dear  Sir, 
Your  cordial  friend  and  fervant, 
for  the  truth*s  fake, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 
Sedgwick,  ^uly  16,  1805. 

*  Sec  ihc  Author'*  Sermons  on  Baptifm. 


^uft  Fublijhed^  andforfak  «/ Manning  ^Loring*j 
Book/tore,  No.  2,  Cornbill, 

A  VINDICATION  of  the  DISTINGUISH- 
ING SENTIMENTS  of  the  BAPTISTS,  againft  the 
Writinps  of  Meilrs.  Cowles,  Miller  and  Edwards. — 
By  ELISHA  ANDREWS,  a.  m.  Paftor  of  the  Bapiift 
Church  inTempleton.   [^Priw  50  cents  in  blue^']^  cents  hound. 

Extract  from  the  Introdudion. 
*<  The  Baptifts  are  the  fartheft,  perhaps,  of  any  people 
in  the  world,  from  eflecming  baptifm  a  favmg  ordinance  ; 
we  neither  fubflitnte  it  in  the  room  of  the  atoning  blood  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  or  of  the  renewing  influence  of  the  Holy ' 
Ghofl  ;  yet  we  are  far,  very  far  indeed  from  fuppofing, 
that  any  thing  which  it  has  pleafed  the  fovereign  Head  of 
the  Church  to  inftitute,   and   to  require  his  followers  to 
obferve,  can  be  a  matter  of  indifference.     We  fay,  we  be- 
lieve, and  we  think  that   we  can  prove  beyond   any  rea- 
fonable  difpntc,  that  the  bnptifrn  of  thofe  who  profefs  faith 
in  Jefus  Chrili,  is  an  inftitution  of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  that  it  is 
a  divine  ordinance  which  all  believers  are  under  indifpen- 
fable  obligations  to   obey.     It  alfo  appears  to  us  exceed- 
ingly plain  that  infant   baptifm   is   not  fo   much  as  once 
mentioned  in  the  whole  Bible.    It  is  the  fpurious  offspring 
of  human  invention.     It  is  an  ufurper,  which  would  take 
the  place  of  the  divinely  appointed  baptifm  of  believers, 
and  which,   fliould  it   obtain   as  univerfally  as  its  friends 
wifli  it  may,  and  intend  that  it  (hall,  would  entirely  fuper- 
fede  and  fct  afide  that  kind  of  baptifm  which  is  taught  in 
the  New  Teffament.     This  being  the  cafe,  our  bufmefs  is 
wholly   on   the   defenfive.     It  is  for  tlie  Pedobaptifts"t6 
pi-ove,  if  they  can,  that  infant  baptilm  is  a  divine  appoint- 
ment ;   while  we  ihall  endeavour  to  fhew,  that  th^eir  argu« 
ments  are  not  fufKcicnt  to  evince  the  truth  of  it." 


Alfo^  juji  Publijhed,  and  for  fale  as  above, 

THE  Second  Edition  of  SEVEN  SERMONS 

on  the  Mode  and  Subje^s  of  BAPTISM By  DANiet 

Merrill,  A.M. 

[Trice  37I  cents."] 


TWELVE    LETTERS,. 


A  I)  D  R  E  S  S  E  D    TO 


R.EF,  SAMUEL  AUSTIN,  a.  m. 


IN    WHICH, 


!TIS  VINDICATION  OF   PARTIAL  WASHINS. 
FOR  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 


CONTAIXED    IH 


TEN    LETTERS, 

IS  REVIEIVEI)   AND  DISPROVED: 


BY  DANIEL 'MERRILL,  A.M. 

PASTOR    OF    THE    OHURCH    OF    CHRIST    IN     SEDUWyCBv 


In  vnin  do  they  worniip  me,  teaching  for  do(5liines  the  commandments 
of  men.  Jesus   Cukist. 

Wo  unto  you,  l.iivycrs  !  for  ye  have  taken  away  the  key  of  knowledge: 
ye  entered  not  in  yourfelves,  and  them  that  were  entering  in  ye  Jiin-- 
dered.  Jesus  Chhist, 


BOSTON : 

TRINTED    AND     SOLD    BY    MANNING    £?    LORING, 

NO.    2,    CORNHILL..,..J806. 


BiSTklCT  OF  MAtSACBUSfrn,  t»  'Wit, 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  eleventh  day  of  April,  in  the 
thirtieth  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
Manning  &  Lor  l  no,  of  the  faid  dillrift,  have  depofited  in  this 
cffice  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  zoit : — "Twelve  Letters,  addrcfled  to  Rev. 
Samu  e  l  Au  ST  I  N,  A.  M.  in  which  his  Vindication  of  Partial  Wafh- 
ing  for  Chriftian  Baptifm,  contained  in  Ten  Letters,  is  reviewed  and 
difproved.  By  Da  n  i  e  l  Me  h  r  i  l  l,  A.  M.  Paftor  of  the  Church  of 
Chrift  in  Sedgwick." 

In  conformity  to  the  Aft  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  entitled, 
*'  An  Aft  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  Copies 
6f  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch 
Copies  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  alfo  to  an  Aft, 
•ntitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplementary  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  '  An  Aft  for  the 
Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  fecuring  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts, 
and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  Copies,  during  the 
Times  therein  mentioned;'  and  extending  the  Benefits  thereof  to  the 
Arts  cf  Defigning,  Engraving,  and  Etching  Hiftorical  and  other  Prints." 

N.  GOODALE,  Clerk  of 'the  Dijlriii  (^  Majachufem. 

A  true  Copy  of  Record.    Atteft  : 

N.  GooDALZ,  Cieri. 


Sfo  the  Ohrldtlan  tzrCeader* 


Vv  HATEVER  be  your  denomina- 
tion, your  wifdom  is,  to  feek  the  knowledge 
and  practice  of  .the  truth.  In  the  following 
Letters  you  will  find  difcuffed  fome  of  the 
moil  important  articles  of  the  Chriftian  re- 
ligion :  fom.e  of  the  great  and  leading  points 
in  which  Jefus,  as  Captain  of  the  Lord's  hofl, 
afferts  his  kingly  authority,  are  fet  to  view ; 
as  well  as  fome  of  thofe  in  which  Antichrill 
afferts  his  authority,  are  expofed.  The  high- 
ly interefting  contention,  at  the  prefent,  is, 
who  fhall  reign  over  us,  and  who  fhall  give 
us  laws,  Chrift  or  Antichrift  !  The  Pope  and 
his  clergy,  and  all  who  are  in  part  or  whole 
blinded  by  the  fmoke,  the  errors,  which  came 
out  of  the  bottomlefs  pit,  Rev.  ix.  2.  fay  Anti- 
chrift's  authority,  in  whole  or  part,  is  founded 
in  the  word  of  God.  The  author  of  thefe 
pages  has  endeavoured  to  ftiow,  that  Antichrift 
hath,  for  his  ordinances  of  fprinkling,  &c.  no 
fupport  from  the  Revelation  of  Jefus  Chrift ; 
and  that  his  temporifmg,  defiling,  and  abomi- 
nable errors,  fo  far  as  they  concern  the  pref- 


iV 

ent  controverfy,  have  not  one  pafTi^i^ej  from 
Geiicfis  to  R-evclation,  in  their  jfavour. 

The  reader  will  find  a  fpirit  of  extermina- 
tion manifefted  aeaiaft  the  errors  of  Mr.  Auf^ 
tin  :  but  the  reader  is  defired  not  to  feel  in 
his  own  breaft,  nor  to  fuppofe  that  the  author 
poiTeffed  in  his,  the  fame  fpirit  towards  Mr. 
Auftin's  perfon  or  character,  which  is  expreff- 
ed  towards  his  errors.  The  author  takes  lib- 
erty to  aiTure  every  perfon  into  whofe  hands 
this  pamphlet  may  fall,  that  he  hath  no  con- 
temptible idea  of  Mr.  Auftin's  character  or 
talents  ;  nor  is  he  without  ftrono;  hooes  that 
Mr.  Auftin  is,  generally  fpeaking,  a  cordial 
friend  to  trulh,  notwlthiiandTng  he  hath  em- 
braced and  laboured  to  vindicate  feveral  very 
hurtful  and  bewildering  errors.  All  God's 
children  have  not  as  yet  obeyed  the  heavenly 
command,  to  come  out  from  the  man  of  fin, 
from  Antlchrifl:,  to  touch  not  the  unclean 
thing,  and  be  feparate. 

V/hilft  Mr.  Auftin,  and  many  others,  who 
have  left  the  dodrines  of  the  man  of  fm,  are 
yet  bewildered  by  fome  of  his  ordinances,  we 
are  not  to  count  them  as  enemies,  but  to  ad- 
moniih  them  as  friends,  and  be  ever  ready  to 
embrace  them,  the  moment  in  which  they 
will  obev  our  King^  and  come  out,  and  touch 
net  the  abominations  of  the  modier  of  harlots. 

There  are  many  who  will  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  themfelves,  and  thofe 
who  are  enterijag  in  by  Chrift's  gofpel  ordi- 


nance,  baptihn,  they  hinder.  In  this  matter 
they  defile  themfelves,  and  are  yet  with  the 
man  of  Jin  ^  who  ftill  hinders  the  full  glory  of 
the  church. 

Reader,  if  you  will  not  be  baptized  your- 
felf,  and  thus  enter  into  the  vifibie  churchy 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  earth,  be  careful 
how  vou  hinder  thofe  who  are  enterins:  in. 

o 

ChriiVs  kingdom  mud  come,  and  it  v/ill  come: 
be  careful,  left  you  be  found  even  to  fight 
againft  God. 

If  the  errors  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm^  un- 
believers for  the  fubjedis,  and  unbaptized  per- 
fons  for  church  members,  be  not  of  Chrift,  but 
of  the  world,  rejecSt  them  as  relicks  of  Anti- 
chriPc.  The  following  Letters,  if  read  with  a 
prayerful,  teacliable  fplrit,  will  iliow  that  the 
above  are  errors,  not  being  found  in  the  gof- 
pel  of  Ghrift,  but  being  contrary  from  the 
word  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Reader,  are  you  a  Chriftian,  and  yet  un- 
willing to  know  the  laws  of  your  King !  Do 
you  find  that  within  you  there  arc  ftrong  pre- 
judices, and  the  rifings  of  a  corrupt  mind, 
againft  hearing  and  pradlifing  as  the  more 
noble  Bereans  did,  when  Paul  was  the  preach- 
er ?  For  Zion's  fake,  for  truth's  fake,  and  for 
your  own  fake,  remember  that  the  wrath  of 
man  worketh  not  the  righteoufnefs  of  God. 
Have  courage  and  refolution  enough  to  hear 
and  know  tlie  truth,  and  pra-fiife  it  when 
known. 


yi 


Praying  that  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift  may  give  you  to  fee  the 
rifing  church,  as  now  coming  up  from  the 
wildernefs,  fhowing  herfelf  in  gofpel  beauty 
and  fimplicity,  and  to  efpoufe  her  caufe  with 
your  whole  heart, 

I  am,  reader, 

your's  and  the  church'« 
willing  fervant, 

The  author. 

SssciricK,  Deczmbbr  i^,  x^oj. 


LETTERS 

TO 

the  Rev.  SAMUEL   AUSTIN. 
LETTER  L 

REVEREND     SIR, 

WITH  pain  and  pleafure  I  continue  in  the  field  of 
theological  controverfy.  It  is  painful  to  me,  that 
the  time,  talents,  and  zeal  of  good  men,  Ihould  be  occupied 
to  give  currency  and  continuance  to  error.  In  the  mean 
time,  it  is  grateful  to  my  feelings  to  difcover  the  fame  good 
men  relinqui filing,  by  little  and  little,  their  indefenllble 
ground.  The  conceffions  and  profeflion,  which  are  found 
in  your  Letters  to  me,  furnifli  hope  that  you  will  yet  dif- 
cover truth  and  embrace  it. 
You  concede, 

1.  That  the  prefent  controverfy  cannot  be  fettled  by  an 
appeal  to  the  Greeks  or  Romans  ;  to  the  monk  of  Paleftine, 
Jerome  ;  to  the  reformer  of  Geneva,  or  to  the  Englifh  de- 
fender of  the  Baptifts  ;  or  even  by  an  appeal  to  church  hif- 
tory,  or  to  any  other  writings  which  are  merely  human.* 

2.  That  when  baptifm  was  introduced  among  the  Jews, 
in  the  days  of  John,  and  in  the  days  of  Chrift  and  his  apof- 
tles,  it  was  not  adminiRered  to  infants  ;  and  that  the  evi- 
dence for  infant  baptilm  does  not,  in  our  day,  amount  to 
demonftration.f 

3.  You  concede,  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  book  by  which 
the  prefent  controverfy  muft  be  fettled. :{: 

4.  You  concede,  that  our  Englifh  tranflation  of  the  Bible 
is  fo  perfedt,  that  every  argument,  which  is  founded  in  any 
degree  upon  a  different  tranflation  than  what  is  found  in  our 
•ommon  Bibles,  "  has  an  objedion  at  its  foundation."^ 

•  Pages  66,  107  of  the  Letters  to  the  author. 
t  Page*  7 1  7i«-  t  Page  fco8r  $.  Page-  ;». 


8  Letlers  io  R.v.  Mr.  A-yTin.  [Let.  I. 

This  Lift  conccfflou  has  its  impoitance,  not  as  it  refpedts 
either  you  or  me,  but  as  it  reipefts  comrrfm  readers,  that 
they  may  reft  latisfied  that  the  pvefent  trar.flaii-on  is  fuffi- 
cieiitly  accurate  and  expHcit.  Sf'Jue  other  ccnceffions  I  may 
inention,  as  the  fubjed  ihall  require. 

Your  pi-ofeffion.  Sir,  is  cicellent,  and  worthy  of  a  Oirif- 
tian,  in  every  conteil;.  It  is  this:  "As  for  me,  I  confider 
truth  infinitely  preferable  to  any  party  intereft,  and  promife 
to  you,  that  I  will  yield  to  evidei.ce  as  liion  as  it  is  presented. " 

it  is  now  expedient  that  I  notice  anoth.er  ccncelllon,  which 
you  give  to  the  public,  in  page  7  of  ycur  Letters  ;  and  in 
llic  following  words  : — "  Through  the  moR  of  my  miniftry, 
tl^ough  I  prevailingly  believed  that  the  d(/6(riiie  and  pradice 
of  the  Psedobaptills,  generally  conlidered,  were  authorized 
in  the  Scriptures,  I  had  not  that  full cnv'tcTion  on  thefe points 
^vhich  I  had  refpefting  many  other  articles.  Jt  is  not  more 
than  three  years,  fmce  by  fome  particular  ir.cidents,  my 
attention  was  called  up  afrefn  to  the  fubjedl :  I  then  deter- 
mined to  invtftigate  it  as  clofely  as  my  abilities  would  allow  : 
I  accordingly  examined  the  Scriptures  from  beginning  to 
end — got  into  my  hands  and  read  all  the  publications  on  the 
fubject  which  I  could  command,  and  the  refult  of  my  in- 
quiries was  juft  the  reverfe  of  yours.  It  appears  to  me  that 
no  determ'mafe  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptifm  was  clearly 
pointed  out  in  the  Scriptures,  or  made  efiential  to  the  valid- 
ity of  the  ordinance." 

Tliis  concefflon  of  yours,  Sir,  together  with  its  IfTue,  in- 
clines me  to  relate  to  you,  in  this  place,  and  through  you  to 
the  public,  fome  of  the  providences  which  led  to  my  convic- 
tion, and  in  the  refult,  to  my  converfion  from  Jonic  of  m.j 
errors. 

For  nearly  ten  years  after  I  entertained  fom^e  ]i''pe  that  I 
■was  born  of  the  Sjiirit,  I  do  not  recolleifl  of  its  being  once 
fu'^gefted  to  my  mind,  that  there  was  any  confiderabie  diffi- 
culty in  fupporting  fprinkling  for  baptiJ'm,  and  infants  for 
the  fubjects.  In  the  year  1790,  whilll  in  purfjit  of  theo- 
logical knowledge,  I  had  put  into  my  hands  a  Ihort  hilicry 
of  infant  baptifm,  written  by  a  gentleman  in  New  York. 
This  pamphlet  produced  its  witneffes  for  infant  baptifm, 
century  preceding  century,  till  it  came  nearly  to  the  apof- 
tclic  age  ;  but  it  left  a  blank,  as  all  other  hiftories  of  the 
fame  kind  have  done,  between  the  period  in  wliich  we  firfl 
hear  of  infant  baptifm,  and  the  apoilles.  This  deficiency  of 
hiftoric  evidence  I  ienfibly  felt.  This  chain  of  evidence  was 
at  the  time  quite  pleafmg  to  me,  fo  far  as  it  went  j-  bur  it 


Let.  I.]        Leit'efsi'o  tLev»  Mr.  Aujih,  ^ 

wanted  a  few  more  links  to  reach  to  the  apoftles,  fo  as  to 
unite  their  practice  and  ours  together :  however,  the  author 
did  as  well  as  he  could,  in  the  cauie  which  he  was  labouring 
to  defend.  I  was  now  left  to  believe,  without  evidence,  if  I 
could,  that  Infant  baptifm  came  down,  in  regular  fucceffion, 
from  the  apoftles  to  us.  This  I  believed.  Not  only  fo,  but 
I  confidered  infant  baptifm  a  Bible  dodlrine,  though  not 
quite  fo  explicitly  expreifed  as  I  could  have  wifhed.  From 
this  time  I  had  occafionally  fome  fmall  difficulties  ;  but  they 
were,  for  the  mod  part,  but  quite  fmall,  and  of  Ihort  contin- 
uance. The  Bible  I  believed  to  be  full  of  the  docftrine  of 
infant  baptifm,  though  I  knew  of  no  particular  place  which 
Was  fully  to  the  point.  I  confidered  it  to  be  a  very  fingular 
thing,  that  we  had  no  example  of  infant  baptifm.  Said  I 
to  myfelf,  Had  there  been  one  example,  it  would  have  put 
the  matter  beyond  a  doubt.  Whether  example  or  not,  ftill 
r  concluded  it  mull:  be  a  Bible  dodrine :  for  I  fuppofed  that 
the  greateft  of  men,  that  the  wifeft  of  men,  and  that  the  mofl 
learned  alfo,  had  always  pradifed  it :  befides,  I  took  it  for 
granted  (for  there  was  no  evidence  for  it)  that  baptifm  had 
ifucceeded  circumcifion,  and  that  the  fame  fubjeds  which 
were  of  old  circumcifed,  were  now  to  be  baptized.  More- 
over, there  are  feveral  paffages  of  the  Nev7  Teftament,  which 
have  been  thought,  by  great,  good,  and  learned  men,  to 
favour  infant  baptifm.  1  thought  the  fame.  If  you,  Sir, 
will  have  patience  with  me,  I  will  mention  fome  of  thefe 
fcriptures,  and  efpeclally  thofe  which  I  viewed  as  cardinal 
texts  upon  the  fubjed.  I  will  alfo  tell  you  how  I  then  un- 
derftood  them,  likewife  what  are  my  prefent  thoughts  re- 
fpeding  them.  The  texts  which  were  confidered  to  be, 
more  than  any  other,  in  favour  of  infant  baptifm,  and  which 
appeared  fufficient  to  authorize  the  pradice,  are  the  fol- 
lowing. 

1.  Mat.  xix.  13,  14,  15.  'Then  were  there  brought  unto 
him  little  children,  that  he  fhould  put  his  hands  on  thern, 
and  pray  ;  and  the  difciples  rebuked  them  :  but  Jefus  faid. 
Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me, 
for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  ne  laid  his 
hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence.' 

2.  The  parallel  text,  Mark  x.  13,  14,  15,  16.  *  And  they 
brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he  fhould  touch  them  5 
and  his  difciples  rebuked  thofe  that  brought  them  :  but  when 
Jefus  faw  it  he  was  much  difpleafed,  and  iaid  unto  them, 
Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  uato  roe,  and  forbid  theQ^ 

B  2 


lo  Lettcn  io  Rev,  Mr.  Auji'in.         [Let.  I. 

nnt,  for  of  i'uch  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  fav  unto 
you,  Whofoever  iLall  nut  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a 
little  child,  he  Ihall  not  ente*-  therein.  And  he  took  them 
up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them,  and  blefled  them.' 

3.  The  lame  account,  as  related  by  Luke,  xviil.  i^,  i6,  17, 
v'as  thought  to  afFord  fomc  additional  light.  Luke  fays, 
•  They  brought  unto  him  alfo  infants,  that  he  would  touch 
them;  but  when  his  difciplcs  faw  it,  they  rebuked  them: 
but  Jefus  called  them  unto  him,  and  faid.  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me,  ai\d  forbid  them  not,  for  of  fuch  is 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  fay  unto  you,  Whofoever 
Ihull  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  lliall 
in  no  wife  enter  therein  * 

4.  Acts  ii.  39.  '  For  the  promife  is  unto  you,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as'  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  fluill  call.' 

5.  I  Cor.  vii.  14.  '  For  the  unbelieving  hufband  is  fandi- 
lied  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  fanclitied  by  the 
kufband  ;  elfe  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
koly.' 

Upon  thefc  texts  I  reafoned  in  the  following  manner. 

Little  children,  young  children,  and  infants  were  brought 
to  Chrift  ;  he  approved  of  their  being  brought ;  he  was  dif- 
pleafed  with  fuch  as  forbade  them  ;  we  lliould  bring  our 
children  to  him. ;  what  way  fo  fuitable  as  to  prefent  them 
in  baptifm  :  befides,  Cln-ift  faid.  Of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  How  could  infants  be  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
orherwife  than  by  being  baptized,  and  fo  admitted  members 
of  the  vifible  clnuch  I  It  was  alfo  my  thought,  that  ti)e 
promife  menlioned  Acls  ii.  39.  was  the  fame  that  was  made 
to  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii.  :  and,  in  addition  to  the  above,  Paul 
tells  us,  that  when  one  of  the  parents  is  a  believer,  the  chil- 
dren are  holy.  Hence,  my  conclufioii  was-  that  infant  bajv. 
tifm  was  warranted  by  Scripture,  when  not  one  of  the  texts 
fa 's  fo  much  as  a  word  about  baptifm  ;  but  each  one  relates 
to  quite  a  different  fubjed,  as  you  may  fee  by  examining  the 
connexion  of  each. 

Should  more  evidence  be  required,  my  erroneous  judg- 
ment was,  that  houfehold  baptifm,  as  recorded  Acts  xvi. 
15  and  33.  and  i  Cor.  i.  16.  would  make  up  any  deficiency  ; 
when  in  neither  of  the  pafTages  is  there  a  word  faid  of  any 
child  or  adult  being  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  another. 
Upon  this  foundation,  if  it  may  be  called  a  foundation,  my 
faith  with  refpeft  to  infant  baptifm,  or  with  refped  to  what 
is  of  late  years  fo  called,  relied,  wjth  little  iaterrup tion,  till 


Let.  II.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  AtyTtn,  >* 

tlie  beginning-  of  179.J  ;  at  which  time  I  felt  forne  hefitancy- 
as  to  its  being  fupported  by  the  oracles  of  God. 

M7  prefent  thoughts  with  refped  to  the  above  texts,  you 
will  permit  me  to  defer  till  I  write  you  again  r  and  in  tho 
mean  time  belicTe  mf;  to  be 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER   IL 


IN  the  clofe  of  my  laft,  the  thought  was  faggefted,  that 
my  mind  h'diit.ited,  in  the  beginning  of  1799,  as  to  the 
validity  of  infant  baptifm  ;  it  did,  however,  preponderate  in 
its  favour.  But  in  the  winter  and  fpring  of  this  year,  a  new 
fcene  opened  to  vievv\  At  this  time  a  remarkable  and 
extenfive  reformation  took  place  among  my  people  ;  and 
among  the  converts,  there  were  not  lefs  than  twenty  or  thirty 
who  were  diinuisiied  with  infant  baptifm,  and  many  of  them 
doubted  of  fprinkiing  being  the  baptifm  of  the  gofpel.  It 
became  my  indhpenfable  duty  to  take  up  |he  fubjed,  and 
canvafs  it  as  well  as  I  could.  It  was  attempted  ;  but  i 
foimd  not  my  path  fo  clear  of  dlfriculties  as  it  was  wifhed  to 
be.  However,  my  ignorance  and  unbelief  fuftained  me  for 
tlie  time  :  and  by  not  underllanding,  and  by  mifapplying 
Mark  vii.  4.  and  by  going  with  the  young  converts  to  the 
water,  and  there  partially  wafliing  them  for  baptifm,  their 
minds  were  in  meafure  fatisfied.  At  the  fame  time,  they 
had  encouragement  that  the  fubjed  of  b;iptifm  fliould 
be  foon  taken  under  coiifideration  again,  and  that  they 
might  expert  to  havei|[it  then  more  fully  and  fatisfadorily 
explored.  Thus  the  matter  apparently  refted  with  them  ; 
but  my  own  mind  was  not  long  at  a  time  without  queries 
upon  tne  fubjeft.  I  now  read  my  Bible  over  and  over  again  ; 
every  pamphlet  and  every  page  written  by  any  Psdobaptifl, 
upon  infant  fprinkiing,  1  read  with  eagernefs,  wherever  I 
could  find  it  ;  but  whenever  I  lit  upon  a  leaf  written  in 
favour  of  gofpel  baptifm,  I  either  neglected  it  wholly,  or 
read  it  with  prejudice.  My  obje6t  was  not  lb  much  to  know 
■wJiat  baptifm  was,  as  to  prove  that  fprinkiing  was  baptifm. 
I  purfucd  this  fruitlefs  fearch  for  nearly  fix  years.  At  in- 
tervals my  mind  was  fatisfied,  largely  fo,  that  fprinkiing,  or 
Wiher  tkit  partial  walhing,  was  gofpel  baptifm,  and  infants 


II  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlin,         [Let.  II. 

the  proper  fubje<5ts  ;  as  fully  perfnaded  of  this  being  the 
cafe,  perhaps,  as  you  were,  after  three  years  fearch.  My 
mind  almoft  perpetually  gave  judgment  in  favour  of  infant 
fprinkling,  and  feldom,  if  ever,  doubted  but  it  would  pafs 
for  baptifm.  I  was  willingly  ignoiant  of  the  true  gofpel 
baptifm.  Not  only  was  I  willingly  ignorant,  but,  like  my 
Paedobaptift  brethren,  I  chofe  darknefs,  in  this  matter,  rather 
than  light.  I  was  much  like  them  alfo  in  another  particu- 
lar, in  that  I  too  much  faid,  in  both  words  and  pradice,  that 
any  application  of  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus, 
was  baptifm  ;  and  that  there  was  no  determinate  way,  clear- 
ly pointed  out  in  the  Bible,  by  which  water  ftiould  be  ap- 
plied. For  fprinkling,  as  being  gofpel  baptifm,  I  long  and 
Tainly  fought ;  and  becaufe  I  could  not  find  it,  I  more  vain- 
ly concluded,  that  the  matter  was  all  left  at  fuch  loofe  ends 
that  nobody  could  know;  and  fo  we  muft  praclife,  and  be 
agreed  a^bout  the  matter  as  well  as  we  could.  However, 
my  mind  could  not,  for  a  long  period  at  a  time,  reft  in  this 
Hate  of  grofs  darknefs  and  ignorance.  Befides,  my  people 
did  not  forget  my  encouragement,  that  the  fubjed  of  baptilin 
fhould  be  again  taken  up,  and  more  fully  handled  ;  nor  did 
they  forget  to  remind  me  of  my  promife. 

But  the  more  I  ftudied  on  the  fubjcift,  the  more  I  difcov- 
ered  my  darknefs,  and  my  unprcparednefs  to  treat  on  it 
publickly.  Whilli  fearching  every  where  for  data  to  prove 
fprinkling  or  partial  wafhing  to  be  baptifm,  it  ufed  occafum- 
all)'  to  be  fuggefted.  Who  are  gofpel  fubjedls  of  baptifm  ? 
This  became  to  me  a  ferious  queftion  in  the  year  j  804. 
My  difficulty  was,  indeed,  not  fmall ;  yet  I  thought  mylelf 
juftified  in  continuing  my  pradice.  In  Auguft  of  this  year, 
juft  before  the  adminiflration  of  infant  fprinkling,  this  text 
fomewhat  forcibly  flruck  my  mind,  ♦  He  that  doubteth  is 
damned  if  he  eat.'  In  a  moment  $he  following  thought 
came  to  my  relief,  /  doult  the  laivfulnrfs  of  my  rrfufing  t<y 
adm'in'tjler.  In  this  flrait,  my  judgment  was,  that  duty  call- 
ed me  to  proceed. 

The  next  Lord's  day,  in  the  morning,  on?  of  my  breth- 
ten,  who  had  long  doubted  infant  baptifm,  came  and  re- 
quefted  to  have  his  children,  eight  in  number,  baptized. 
This  requeft  was  at  that  time  to  niC  an  un|  lealant  one:  I 
hefitated-  My  confcience  would  but  barely  c(^nfent  to  the 
baptifm  of  infants.*     Here  weie  children  of  fufficient  age 

*  I  frequently  ufe  the  wrrds,  !)aptifni  and  to  baptize,  in  their  modern 
ftnd  perverted  fenfe,  to  fijrnJfy  raitifni  and  ro  rantize.  It  is  dt^fired  that 
the  reader  will  underftdrd  me,  ^md  that  th  opp<;fei'^  of  goJuft  bi>ptiijy| 
Vili  tab«  no  advantage,  from  cb«  woird*  bcu^g  thus  ufcdi 


Let.  ILj         Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aiylin,   .  13 

to  be  favight,  and  to  believe  for  themfclves.  The  difficulty 
■which  I  felt  was  mentioned  to  the  father  of  thefe  children : 
he  WHS  deiired  to  wait  for  an  anfwer  till  the  intermiflion :  I 
then  took  him,  with  two  of  my  deacons,  and  converfed  con- 
fiderably  upon  the  fubje*5l.  It  was  fomewhat  plain  to  me, 
and  mentioned  to  them,  that,  going  upon  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion,  it  was  inconiillent  to  baptize  an  infant  of  eight 
days,  and  to  refufe  another  of  twice  eight  years.  The  more 
I  thought  and  fpake  on  the  fubjedl,  the  more  my  difficulties 
increafed.  At  this  janclure,  I  fenfibly  felt  that  wifdom  was 
needed  from  on  high.  1  mentioned  to  the  two  deacons,  that 
it  was,  in  my  judgment,  expedient  that  there  fliould  be  a 
day  of  falling  and  prayer  appointed,  that  we  might,  among 
other  reouefts,  a<k  of  God  wifdom  and  knowledQ:e  with 
rcfpe<5t  to  baptifm,  and  the  fit  fubjefls.  The  deacons  agreed 
to  the  expediency  rf  the  propofal,  and  the  brother  confented 
to  defer  the  baptifm  of  his  children.  Not  long  after,  at  a 
public  conference  of  the  brethren,  my  propofal  was  agreed 
to,  and  a  day  was  appointed. 

The  day  was  folemnly  obferved  :  and  with  pleafure  I 
now  give  information  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  and  for 
the  encouragement  of  my  erring  brethren,  and  efpeciallj 
for  fuch  as  are  in  fenfible  darknefs  refpeding  the  fubjeds  of 
our  difficulty,  that,  to  the  befl.  of  my  recollection,  every 
brother  and  fifter,  who  readily  united  in  this  day  of  feeking 
vrifdom  of  God,  hath  been  favoured  with  light,  and  very- 
comfortable  fatisfadion,  refpeding  thofe  things  concerning 
which  we  ailced  counfel  of  God.  Our  darknefs  and  doubts, 
however,  were  not  removed  all  at  once,  but  by  little  and 
little  ;  and  we  were  fet  at  liberty  one  after  another,  much  as 
it  is  in  days  of  reformation. 

Several  manifeftly  felt  no  need  of  wifdom  ;  they  ftlU  re- 
main in  their  traditionary  darknefs. 

The  day  of  our  fafting  and  prayer  to  the  Father  of  LiglK?, 
for  wifdom  to  guide  us  into  the  knowledge  and  pradice  of 
his  will,  being  now  ended,  my  mind  was  ftill  in  anxious 
fufpenfe.  My  thoughts  now  tr.rned  to  infant  baptifm. 
Some  erpedation  1  poffelled,  that,  if  nothing  could  be  found 
for  infant  fprinkling,  fomething  might  for  baptizing,  that  is, 
for  immerling  them.  My  cafe  was  fomewhat  like  that  of 
a  drov/ning  man. — I  was  difpoled  to  catch  at  every  ftraw 
which  might  affiit  in  faving  my  traditionary  notions  from 
fmking  :  Hill  nothing  could  1  find  which  appeared  fo  to 
comport  with  the  directions  and  pattern  given,  as  to  afford 
a  reUiiig  place^ 


14  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr^  Aujiin,         [Let.  II. 

Both  day  and  night  my  mind  was  filled  with  careful  and 
prayerful  meditation.  My  anxiety  increafed  from  week  ta 
week  J  fo  did  a  careful  fearch  after  the  mind  and  will  of 
God.  My  darknefs  likewife  increafed,  till  it  was  darknefe 
very  fenfibly  to  be  felt. 

For  a  week  or .  ten  days  I  could  difcern  fcarce  a  ray  of 
light  refpedting  baptifm,  or  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm,  from  any 
quarter.  Whilft  in  this  condition,  I  was  apprehenfive  that 
the  refult  would  be,  that  I  ihould  never  know  m  hat  the  gof- 
pel  baptifm  is,  but  fhould* in  this  dark  and  doubtful  ftatCj 
be  difmilfed  from  my  people,  and  go  preaching  tlie  gofpel 
where  I  might  find  a  place. 

Notwithftanding  all  my  darknefs,  I  ftill  believed  that  there 
was  fuch  an  ordinance  as  gofpel  baptifm,  which  ought  to  be 
adminiftered  in  the  ufe  of  water  ;  and  that  God  was  able  to 
fiiow  me  what  it  was.  But  my  proud  heart,  at  times,  could 
not  endure  the  thought  of  being  a  Baptill;  ;  however,  God, 
©f  his  infinite  mercy,  as  I  now  confider  it,  kept  me  as  in 
Egyptian  darknefs,  till  my  proud  heart  was  fubdued,  and 
tny  ftubborn  will  bowed,  and  I  made  willingly  to  fay,  Lord» 
not  my  will,  but  thine,  be  done  ;  make  me  a  Psedobaptift, 
a.  Paedorantift,  or  even  a  Baptift,  or  any  thing,  as  thou  wilt. 

Almoft  from  this  moment  the  clouds  began  to  fcatter, 
and  the  glorious,  the  important,  the  precious  light  of  gofpel 
baptifm  began  to  fhine  into  my  anxious  and  benighted  mind. 
Diredly  upon  it,  I  began  to  write  and  deliver  to  my  peopl« 
thofe  Sermons  which  you  have  profeffedly  examined. 

You  will  probably  confider  me  to  have  pofieffed  a  very 
proud  heart,  which  could  be  fo  unwilling  to  be  a  Baptift. 
Such  a  proud  heart  you,  Sir,  and  many  others  may  poflefs, 
and  be  as  infenfible  of  it  as  I  once  was.  You  may  imagine, 
that,  were  the  Baptifts  right,  you  would  as  readily  be  a 
Baptift  as  any  thing :  but,  Sir,  as  I  once  heard  a  dying 
woman  fay,  "  When  we  are  living,  we  talk  of  dying  ;  but 
when  death  comes,  it  is  another  thing  -J'  fo,  whilft  we  are 
upon  good  terms  with  the  world,  we  may  talk  of  being 
Baptifts ;  but  when  the  trial  comes,  it  is  another  thing. 

During  my  days  of  darknefs  and  trial,  the  texts  mentioned 
in  the  clofe  of  my  laft  letter,  came,  I  know  not  how  often, 
within  my  view :  perhaps  I  have  fifty  times  turned  to  one 
or  the  other  of  them,  wilhing  them  to  fpeak,  "  infants  the 
fubjedls  of  gofpel  baptifm."  In  years  paft  I  took  it  for 
granted  that  they  fpake  this  language  fomewhat  plainly  ; 
but  my  thoughts  upon  thefe  texts  are  different  for  die  pref- 
^t :  they  {hall  be  now  laid  before  you. 


Let.  IL]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Auftin*  15 

The  text  In  Mat.  xix.  13,  14,  15.  is,  *  Then  were  there 
brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  fliould  put  his 
hands  on  them,  and  pray  ;  and  the  difciples  rebuked  them  ; 
but  Jefus  faid.  Suffer  Httle  children,  and  forbid  them  not, 
to  come  unto  me,  for  of  fuch  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  departed  thence.' 
My  thoughts  refpedling  this  paflage  are, 

1.  That  here  is  nothing  faid  or  intimated,  diredlly  or  m- 
diredly,  about  baptizing  children  upon  the  faith  of  their 
parents,  or  upon  their  being  the  children  of  believers. 

2.  Thefe  children  were  not  brought  for  baptifm,  but 
that  Jefus  would  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  pray,  or  blefs 
them,  as  good  old  Jacob,  when  dying,  ble/led  the  fons  of 
Jofeph. 

3.  Some  fuch  little  children,  as  were  brought  to  Chrift, 
are  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  fit  fubje<fts  of  it  too,  as 
you  may  fee  in  the  preceding  chapter,  ver.  3  and  6,  where 
it  is  thus  written,  '  Verily  I  fay  unto  you,  Except  ye  be  con- 
verted, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  fhall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whofoever  fhall  offend  one  of  thefe 
little  ones,  which  believe  in  me.'  If  you  will  turn  to  chap.  xxL 
15,  1 6.  you  will  find  thefe  liitle  children  mentioned  again; 
and  alfo  fome  farther  information,— that  of  fuch  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven :  it  is  thus  related, — '  And  when  the  chief 
priefts  and  fcribes  faw  the  wonderful  things  that  he  did,  and 
the  children  crying  in  the  temple,  and  faying,  Hofanna  to 
the  Son  of  David  ;  they  were  fore  difpleafed,  and  faid  unto 
him,  Heareft  thou  what  thefe  fay  ?  and  Jefus  faith  unto 
them.  Yea:  have  ye  never  read,  Out  of  the  mouth  oi bahes 
and  fucklings  thou  haft  perfefted  pralfe  ?' 

4.  If  this  paffage  hath  any  indireft  reference  to  the  bap- 
tifm of  little  children,  it  is  manifeftly  againft  your  pradice 
or  cuftom  of  infant  baptifm ;  and  informs  you  what  children 
are  to  be  baptized,.pr-fuch  as  are  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  fuch  as  believe  in  Chrift,  or  fuch  babes  and  fuck- 
lings  as  cry,  *  Hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David.' 

My  thoughts  are  fimilar,  with  refpe(5}:  to  the  parallel  paA 
ikges,  which  are  related  by  Mark  and  Luke. 

The  text  in  Ads  ii.  39.  is,  *  Fer  the  promife  is  unto  you, 
and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  a» 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call. 
My  thoughts  on  this  text  are, 

1.  That  the  promife  is  unto  all,  even  to  as  many  as  the 
Lord  oiir  God  fhall  call,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentile^ 
parents  or  children. 


i6  Letters  to  Rcu.  Mr.  Aujin,         [Let.  II. 

2.  That  the  thing  proirtifed  was  th.-  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  as  Peter  manifeftly  informs  us  in  the  words  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  text. 

3.  That  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  was  what  was  fpoken 
of  by  the  prophet  Joel,  ii.  28.  as  quoted  by  I'cter,  Ads  ii. 
17.  '  And  it  Ihall  come  to  pufs  in  the  Lift  days,  (faith  God,) 
I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  lleGi  ;  and  your  fons 
and  your  daughters  ftiall  prophefy,  and  your  young  men  fliall 
fee  vifions,  and  your  old  men  ftiall  dream  dreams.'  This  is 
the  very  promife  about  which  Peter  had  been  preaching. 

4.  That,  as  Peter  faid  to  his  hearers,  '  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jcft.is  Chrift,  for 
the  remilhon  of  fins,  and  ye  ihall  receive  the  gift  of  tlie 
Holy  Ghoft;'  fo  it  is  the  duty  of  ail  men  who  hear  the 
gofpel  to  do  liicewife,  and  they  fliould  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  ^to  quicken,  comfort,  and  feal  them  :  for 
the  promife  ftill  is  to  all,  parents  and  children,  even  to  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  faall  call. 

5.  That  the  chapter  which  contains  this  text  fufficiently 
explains  it,  and  renders  it  not  only  eafy  to  be  undeiftood, 
but  difficult  to  miftake  its  true  meaning. 

There  is  fcarce  a  text  in  the  Bible  which  has  been  oftcner 
preffed  to  tlie  fervice  of  infant  baptifm,  and  tliere  is  not  one 
lefs  to  the  purpofe. 

The  text  in  i  Cor.  vii,  14.  is,  '  F^r  the  unbelieving  huf- 
band  is  fandtified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
fandified  by  the  hufband  ;  elfc  were  your  children  imcleau, 
but  now  are  they  holy.' 

My  thoughts,  Sir,  on  this  text,  are, 

1.  That  it  hath  nothing  to  fay  about  baptifm,  for  it  or 
againft  it-  The  apoftle  is  tre.iting  on  a  fubjedt  quite  afide 
from  that  of  baptifm.  Tlie  fubject,  as  you  well  know,  is 
about  huft)ands  and  wives  living  together,  after  one  of  the 
parties  is  converted.  The  fubjedt  of  baptifm  does  not  once 
come  to  viev/  in  the  whole  matter. 

2.  The  apoftle  tells  us,  that  the  infidel  hufband  Is  fandi- 
fied,  or  made  holy,  as  really  and  as  truly  fo,  and  for  aught 
appears,  in  the  fame  fenfe  of  holinefs,  as  the  children  are 
holy.  This  text,  therefore,  if  you  will  make  it  relate  to  bap- 
tifm, proves  too  much  ;  it  proves  that  the  infidel  and  idol- 
atrous huft)and,  as  well  as  the  children,  is  to  be  baptized. 
This,  Sir,  you,  and  every  man  who  is  not  blinded  by  igno- 
rance or  prejudice,  would  blufti  to  advocate.  This  text  is, 
therefore,  nothing  for  infant  baptifm. 


Let.  II.  ]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlin.  1 7 

As  to  the  texts,  Ads  xvi.  15  and  33.  and  i  Cor.  i.  16. 
■which  Ipeak  of  the  baptifm  of  houfehoids,  my  thoughts  of 
them  are, 

1.  As  expiefTed  in  my  Sermons. 

2.  That  thefe  texts  are  totally  filent  about  infant  baptifm, 
and  that  they  would,  therefore,  be  never  preifed  in  to  the 
fupport  of  it,  were  not  that  point  very  difficult  of  proof. 

3.  There  is,  on  the  whole,  no  intimation  that  there  was,  in 
cither  of  the  houfehoids,  any  one  baptized,  without  being  at 
the  time  a  vifible  believer.  As  to  Lydia's  houfehold,  we  read. 
in  the  laft  verfe  of  the  chapter  of  the  brethren  in  her  houfe. 
As  to  the  jailer's, — Paul  told  him,  that  if  he  believed  on  the 
Lord  Jefus  he  fhould  be  faved,  and  his  houfe.  How  could 
they  be  faved,  if  they  did  not  believe  ?  for  '  he  that  believ- 
eth  not  fhall  be  damned ;'  befides,  we  are  told  in  the  con- 
nexion, that  the  jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his 
houfe. 

You  are  pleafed  to  tell  me,  in  your  expofition,  **  that  the 
Greek  participle  which  is  rendered  believing,  is  in  the  fm- 
gular  number."  Every  Englilh  reader,  who  is  acquainted 
with  the  conftrufiion  of  language,  knows  it  is  the  fame  in 
our  common  Bibles  :  what,  therefore,  do  you  gain  by  refer- 
ring to  the  Greek  ?  Should  you  write  again,  pleafe  to  inform 
me  by  what  authority  you  contradict  the  tranflators  of  the 
Bible,  and  injure  the  fenfe  of  this  text,  by  telling  us,  that 
the  jailer  believed  in  God  and  rejoiced  domcjl'ically. 

With  regard  to.Stephanas's  houfehold,  they  were  addidled 
to  the  miniftry  of  the  faints,  and  this  too,  for  aught  appears, 
from  the  day  of  their  baplifm. 

The  above  texts,  which  are  your  principal  ones,  being 
iiifnfficieui  to  fupport  infant  baptifm,  it  muft  fall :  for  it  is  a 
general  truth, — The  foundation  being  removed,  the  fuper- 
iirufture  muft  come  down.  Thefe  texts  have  been  placed, 
by  the  Pasdobaptiils,  as  the  foundation  of  infant  baptilm. 
Thefe  texts  fay  nothing  about  it ;  yet  they  fay  as  much  as 
does  any  other  in  all  the  Bible.  The  fair  conclufion  is, 
infant  baptilm  muft  fall,  or  ftand  upon  nothing  :  or,  which 
is  the  fame  thing,  it  muft  fall,  or  ftand  upon  texts  which 
have  no  connexion  with  it,  and  which  fay  nothing  about  it. 
We  wilh  your  denomination  would  be  kind  enough  to  be  as 
filent  about  infant  baptifm,  in  both  precept  and  example,  as 
is  the  Bible  ;  then  would  the  controverfy  be  ended. 

Now;  Sir,  permit  me  ta  add  a  few  reflexions  from  what 
we  have  paffed  over. 

c 


I'S  Letters  to  Rro.  Mr,  AujVuu        [Let.  III. 

The  ftjl  is— When  I  found  "  that  I  had  not  that  full 
conviction  on  the  points  of  what  is  culled  pjedobaptifm,"  m/ 
vourfe  of  inquiry  was  very  fimilar  to  yours  ;  and  after  I  had 
{.-urfued  the  fame  courie  three  years,  my  conckifion  was  the 
lame  with  yours,  that  the  mode  of  applyin?'  water  in  baptifm 
was  not  very  determinately  pointed  out,  bat  that  water  ap- 
plied in  almofl  any  way  might  anfwer  tlie  intent  of  the  great 
Inftitutor.  When  I  had  inquired  three  years  more,  Jajllng 
iiXid  prayer  being  added,  my  conclufion  was  the  reyerfe. 

The  Jccond  is — That  the  reafons,  and  the  only  reafons, 
■why  I  could  find  no  dsterrainate  mode  of  applying  water  iiV 
baptifm,  are  thefe  :  firft,  I  would  not  believe  that  immerfion 
was  the  mode,  or  was  the  gofpel  baptifm ;  and  fecondly,  I 
could  find  no. other  mentioned  ;  hence  I  concluded  that  none 
■was  prefcribed. 

Third,  You,  Sir,  having  been  as  I  once  was,  ycu  may  be 
.as  J  now  am. 

Vy'ifliihg  you  much  light  and  more  grace, 

I  am,  Sec. 


LETTER   III. 

REVEREND    SIR, 

I  NOW  proceed  to  examine,  as  critically  and  as  concifely 
as  I  conveniently  can,  your  examination  of  my  Seven 
bermons. 

Whilft  your  Letters  fhall  pafs  in  review,  I  fhall  endeavour 
the  riiin  of  the  errors  which  they  contain.  But,  believe  me, 
Sir,  my  defire  is,  that  not  fo  much  as  one  Hiaft  may  be  aimed 
either  againft  your  perfon,  reputation,  or  piety.  My  bufmefs 
is  not  what  you  or  your  denomination  are,  as  to  numbers, 
talents,  or  piety  ;  but  my  bufinefs  is  with  your  errors,  the 
ways  by  which  you  fupport  them,  and  with  the  truths  <vhich 
ruin  them.  Whilll  I  write  not  for  you  only,  but  for  all  who 
inay  read,  you  n  uft  give  me  leave  to  ufe  great  plainnefs  of 
Ipeech. 

The  errors  which  you  advocate  and  I  dppofe,  are  of  fucJi 
magnitude,  and  fraught  with  fuch  evil  confequencss  to  both 
faints  and  finners,  tnat  we  fnould  pofl'efs  all  that  calninefs 
in  meditation  and  expreflloii,  which  an  eariieil  coutentioa 
for  the  faith  will  permit. 


Let.  III.]        Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  AiyTtn.  .15 

The  errors,  Sir,  which  you  plead  for,  and  I  againft,  are 
three  : 

1.  Sprinkling,  or  partial  wafhinj^,  is  baptifm. 

2.  That  maaifeit  unbelievers  are  proper  and  gofpel  fub- 
jeds  of  baptifm. 

3.  That  b'.ptifm  is  not  necefTary  to  memberfhip  in  the 
vifible  church  of  Chriflr. 

Thefe  three  principles  of  yours  ar?  confidered  to  be  errors, 
^nd  at  war  with  the  gofpel  of  our  Lprd  Jefus  Chrift.  You 
confider  them  to  be  a  part  of  his  gcfpel.  What  you  have 
in  your  Letters  faid,  direftly  or  indiredtly,  in  their  favour,  it 
will  be  a  part  of  my  bufmefs  to  refute.  It  alfo  belongs  to 
ine  to  fliow  the  inconclufivenefs  of  your  fuppofed  refutation 
of  my  arguments  in  favour  of  the  three  following  truths. 

I.  Immerfion,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  or  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  only  gofpel 
baptifm. 

2.-  No  perfon  hath  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  but  upon  his 
making  a  profeffion  oi  gofpel  faith. 

3.  No  perfon  is  a  member  of  Chrift's  vifible  church  till  he 
be  baptized. 

From  thefe  principles  you  draw  fome  popular  obje<5lions 
againft  m.y  fermons.  In  the  fecond  fcntence  of  your  firbt' 
Letter  you  fay,  and  you  meant  the  world  fhould  hear  it, 
"that  I  muft  now  confider  you  as  one  of  the  antichriftian 
yrorld."  In  the  8th,  9th,  and  10th  pages  you  very  much 
enlarge  this  of  all  objedions  the  m.oft  popular.  My  readers, 
Sir,  fliall  have  your  objeflion  fet  before  them  in  its  full 
ftrcngth  :  for  if  it  be  conclufive  againft  my  principles,  let  it 
deftroy  them  ;  but  if  it  have  no  weight,  let  it  be  fet  down 
for  noihiiig.     Your  objection  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Are  you  fure  that  you  a.!l  under  the  divine  approbation, 
iwhilft  merely  becaufe  I  am  not  a  baptized  peifon,  according 
to  your  notion  of  baptifm,  you  place  me  without,  where  are 
dogs,  and  forcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers,  and 
idciuters,  and  w-hofoevv-r  loveth  and  maketh  a  he?  To  thefe 
ej.trcmities  you  are  driven,  by  the  radical  principle  cf  your  ■ 
br.ck,  by  holding  that  complete  immerfion  is  the  only  Chrif- 
tiari  baptifm,  and  that  baptifm  is  eflential  to  a  perfon's  being 
a  vifible  member  of  Chrifi's  kingdom  :  and  by  this  principle 
you  fhut  out  thoufrnds  with  Vvhom,  in  legard  to  piety  and 
Chriftian  refpeclability,  probably  you,  certainly  I,  can  claim 
no  companion.  You  enroll  among  the  vifible  enemies  of 
God,  Leighton,  Flavel,  Doddridge,  Walts,  Gardiner,  the  ■ 
Edwardses,  the  i3raiiierds,  and  a  nmkitude  of  eminently : 


20  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.       [Let.  lU. 

holy  men,  whofe  names  it  is  impoffible  you  fliould  recolletfl 
but  with  deep  veneration." 

Yes,  Sir,  I  recollect  their  names  with  veneration,  and  their 
errors  v/ith  regret.  But  what  liaih  veneration  or  regret  to 
do  \j\'Cti  principles  ? 

I  muft  here  ftate  three  thipigs,: 

1.  That  the  manner  in  which  you  throw  the  objection 
before  the  public,  has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an 
incautious  reader  a  very  unjull  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my 
principles. 

2.  That  great  men  and  great  names  can  never  change 
truth  into  a  lie. 

3.  Your  argument  againft  the  juftnefs  of  my  principles 
is  not  fufficient  to  prove  them  wrong. 

I.  The  manner  in  which  you  throw  the  objedion  before 
the  public,  has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an  incautious 
reader  a  very  unjuft  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles, 
lie  would  naturally  enough  conclude  that  I  muft,  if  con- 
fiitent  with  myfelf,  believe  that  no  one  except  the  Baptifts 
has  any  religion  ;  that  I  confider  and  treat  all  others  as 
being  impenitent  and  ungodly ;  yes,  as  being  "  profligate' 
and  unregenerate."  A  more  unjuft  idea  could  not  be  com- 
municaLed.  Such  an  idea  is  not  only  inconfiftent  with  my 
principles,  but  they  forbid  any  perfon's  fuggefting  that  fuch 
an  idea  could  fairly  be  deduced  from  them.  One  of  our 
principles  is,  that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubjedt  of  baptifm,  unlefs 
he  be  a  penitent,  a  godly,  a  regenerate  perfon. 

Behdes,  Sir,  I  am  not  fingular,  in  confidering  men  to  be 
not  of  the  vifible  church,  but  vifibly  with  the  world,  till 
they  are  baptized.  This  hath  ever  been  the  fentiment  of 
the  church.  It  was  always  mine,  fmce  I  had  any  fentiment 
on  the  fubjed. 

I  will  put  a  cafe.  Suppofe  tliere  be  a  reformation  at  this 
prefent  time  at  Worcefter,  where  you  refide.  Suppofe  fifty 
perfons  of  the  brighteft  talents  be  converted.  Not  one  of 
them  has  been  baptized,  or  even  fo  much  as  fprinkled.  I 
providentially  ride  through  the  town  next  week.  By  chance 
I  meet  Mr.  Auftin  in  the  ftreet,  and  put  this  queftion,—- 
Have  thofe  very  refpedable  charaders,  who  have  been  of  late 
hopefully  converted,  joined  the  church,  (meaning  the  vifible 
church)  ?  your  reply  would  be  ready,  No,  but  fome  of  them 
have  paffed  examination,  and  give  full  fatisfaftion,  who  with 
the  relt  will  probably  join  in  a  inort  time.  Indeed,  Sir,  you 
would  have  no  idea  of  telling  me  that  they  belonged  to  the 
vifible  church,  unlefs  you  are  contrary  from  all  men  whom 


Let.  in.]  '      Leifcrs  to'Reh.  Mr.  Aujiin.  .  21  • 

I  have  ever  yet  Teen.  It  is  an:  offence  agaiiift  the  common 
fenfe  ofChrlitians  oFull  denominaiions,  who  believe  in  gof- 
pel  orciIr.iir.c?s,  to  advocate,  that  peribns  belong  to  the  vi/ible 
church, %nd  yet  never  baptized.  V/ere  your  fide  not  hard 
preiled,  you  would  never  think  .of  fuch  an  expedient  to  get 
out  oi.  diincui'Ly. 

This  being  the  cafe,  the  Eaptifts  do  but  confider  and  treat 
you  and  your  denomination,  as  you  do  the  wifeft  and  mod 
pious  among  yourfelves,  till  they  be  baptized.  Kence,  you 
can  but  fee  that  you  condemn  in  us  what  you  allow,  and 
almoft  univerfally  pradife  among  yourfelves.  Happy,  Sir, 
is  he  th;!t  condemneth  net  himfelf  in  that  which  he  alioweth. 

2.  Great  men  and  great  names  can  never  change  truth 
into  a  lie. 

Suppofe  our  principles  be  fuch  as  to  lead  us  to  believe, 
that  fome  great  and  good  men,  who  will  not  join  the  vifible 
church,  are  not  members  of  it.  By  tlie  way,  this  Ls  juft  what 
you  believe  yourfelves.  Becaufe  we  believe  thus,  do  you 
wifli  us  to  be  reproached  before  all  mien,  as  being  fuperlli- 
tloufly  d'iferent  from  all  ChrilHans  and  reafonable  men  ? 
Befides,  my  dear  Sir,  what  have  great  and  venerable  names 
to  do  in  determining  in  your  favour  the  truth  or  falfehood 
of  a  principle,  when  the  faith  and  pradice  of  the  fame  great 
and  g(jod  men  have  always  been  in  the  face  of  your  theory  \ 
Did  you  not  introduce  this  whole  affair,  about  excluding 
pious  and  venerable  men  from  communion,  in  order  to  pre- 
pcifefs  the  feelings  and  pafficns  of  your  readers  in  your 
favour,  before  you  ventured  to  try  the  ftrength  of  the  gofpel 
principles,  or  thofe  which  you  are  pleafed  to  term  mire  ? 
If  you  did  not,  I  fee  but  one  other  motive  which  )''ou  coild 
have,  that  is,  to  make  room  for  a  retreat,  and  fave  for  yourfelf 
a  Handing  in  the  vifible  church,  though  you  might  not  be 
able  to  prove  fprinkiing  or  partial  walhing  to  be  baptifm,  Qr 
to  refute  my  arguments  for  immerfion. 

3.  Your  argument  againft  tlie  jufinefs  of  my  princples  is 
not  able  to  prove  them  wrong. 

Your  argument  is,  Great  names  and  confefTors.  But 
great  names  have  no  authority  to  overturn  principles  which 
are  founded  on  revelation.  As  to  confeflbrs,  you  have 
none.  Not  one  hath  been  called  to  fuffer  in  defence  of  your 
principles,  and  againft  mine.  If  none  have  fuffered  in  de- 
fence of  your  principles,  your  hoft  of  confeifors  are  at  moft 
but  great  names.  Ilence,  your  whole  argument  is,  if  my 
principle  be  juft,  many  great  and  good  men  have  (^through 

c  a 


2  2  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aitjiin.        [Let.  III. 

negle<ft  of  duty,  for  want  of  llglit,  inclination,  or  opportunity) 
never  been  members  of  the  vi'.lble  kingdom  or  church  of 
Chrift.  Your  argument  I  grant,  but  deny  that  it  injures 
my  principles,  ii  your  argument  deRroy  my  principles, 
one  of  thefe  two  things  is  true  ; — either  i.  That  there  never 
were  any  good  men  among  any  heathert  nation,  tribe,  or 
language,  where  the  vifible  church  of  Chrill  was  unknown  ; 
or  2.  That  thefe  good  men  belonged  to  Chrift's  vifible 
church,  where  there  was  none.  To  aifert  the  firil  would  be 
prefumption  ;  to  advocate  the  laft  would  be  abfurd  :  hence 
my  principles  as  yet  are  out  of  danger. 

Sir,  you  do  not  appear  fully  to  comprehend  the  Baptift 
idea  of  church  membership ;  it  is  therefore  expedient  to 
come  to  definitions. 

1.  None  but  vifible  faints  are  to  be  baptized. 

2.  Every  baptized  perfon,  fo  long  as  he  manifefts  himfelf 
to  be  a  vifible  faint,  is  a  member  of  the  vifible  church. 

3.  Every  baptized  perfon,  who  joins  himfelf  to  a  fociety 
of  baptized  believers,  is  a  member  of  a  particular  vifible 
church. 

In  your  note,  pages  12  and  13,  you  fee  fit  to  contradift 
what  appears  to  have  been  the  general,  if  not  the  univerfal, 
fentiment  of  the  church  m  all  ages  of  Chrillianity,  and  the 
fcntiment  of  the  Bible  too,  as  I  expedl  to  make  manifell. 
This,  your  contradiiftion  againfl:  the  church  of  God,  and 
againft  his  word,  confifts  in  your  denying  that  baptifm  is 
the  ordinance  of  introdudion  into  the  vifible  church  of 
Chrift,  or  is  necelfary  to  a  vifible  ftanding  in  it. 

Your  note  in  pages  18  and  19,  was  probably  confidered 
by  you,  and  will  be  by  many  of  your  readers,  as  containing 
a  difficulty  which  I  ihould  not  be  able  to  get  rid  of  hand- 
fomely.  I  will  tranfcribe  the  paifage  in  which  the  apparent 
and  fuppofed  difficulty  is  contained. 

"  Mr.  Merrill  (fay  you)  tells  us,  page  51,  that  John  bap- 
tized none  but  fuch  as  brought  forth  vifible  fruits  of  repent- 
ance. Thefe  perfons  he  was  making  ready  for  the  Lord ; 
when  prepared,  they  were  to  compofe  that  kingdom,  or  the 
beginning  of  that  kingdom,  which  (hall  never  be  deftroyed. 
He  adds.  It  appears  to  be  this  kingdom  which  was  now  at 
band,  almoft  ready  to  be  fet  up,  of  which  Chrift  fpake  to 
Nicodemus,  when  he  faid,  John  iii.  5.  '  Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  be  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  But  this  is  to  concede,  either  that  John's 
baptifm  was  not  Chriftian  baptifm,  but  of  an  entirely  differ- 
«ttt  nature,  or  tbat  baptifm  does  not  introduce  into  the  kin^- 


Let.  III.]        Letlcrs  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aiijhu  23 

dom,  as  a  line  of"  feparation,  Sec. ;  for  after  thefe  multitudes 
were  baptized,  according  to  the  reprefentation  of  Mr.  Mer- 
rill, they  were  only  made  ready  for  the  kingdom,  which 
had  not  yet  even  a  being.  Here,  then,  he  gives  up  his 
dai4ing  dodrine." 

As  to  this  difficulty,  in  which  you  confider  me  now  to  be, 
let  it  be  remarked, 

1.  That  it  puts  me  not  to  the  leaft  difficulty  as  to  the 
principal  point  in  debate,  namely,  That  no  perfon  can  be  a 
member  of  Chrift's  vifible  church,  till  he  be  baptized  ;  for 
thefe  perfons  were  confelfedly  of  this  defcription. 

2.  "  It  puts  my  darling  dodtrine,"  as  you  exprefs  it,  not 
to  the  leaft  hazard,  any  more  than  the  peculiar  circum- 
ftances  of  the  firft  fetting  up  of  Chrift's  vifible  kingdom 
would,  and  muft  manifeftly  have  done,  on  fuppofition  that 
my  darling  doftrine  were  perfedly  true,  and  fo  my  fentimeut 
corred.  For,  does  not  an  examination  by  an  authorized 
officer,  and  the  enlifting  of  the  examined  perfon,  conftitute 
him  a  foldier  ?  Yet  the  firft  perfon  fo  enlifted  cannot  be  faid 
to  belong  to  the  army ;  nor  can  he  belong  to  it  till  numbers 
more  are  enlifted,  and  the  army  organized.  At  the  fame 
time,  thefe  very  things,  his  examination  and  enlifting  wculd, 
after  the  army  is  conftituted,  be  confidered  as  the  introduc- 
tory and  indifpenfable  prerequifites.  The  application  is 
eafy,  and  the  conclufion  this, — That  I  have  no  neceflity  of 
conceding  to  either  of  the  things  which  you  fuppofe  ;  either 
that  John's  baptifm  is  not  Chriftian  baptifm,  or  that  bap- 
lifm  does  not  introduce  into  the  kingdom,  as  a  line  of  fepa- 
ration. 

3.  Were  it  fo  that  the  quotations  which  you  make  would 
crowd  me,  even  as  clofely  as  you  fuppofe,  ftill  your  own 
principles  would  ftand  in  the  moft  hazardous  pofition,  and 
muft  receive  the  firft  fhock.  For,  fay  you,  pages  t2,  13, 
fpeaking  of  what  initiates  into  the  vifible  church,  "  It  is  that 
evidence,  whatever  it  be,  which  is  furniflied  by  the  fubjed, 
or  by  God  himfelf,  that  a  man  is  a  fiint."  It  is  a  given 
truth.  Sir,  that  many  of  John's  difciples  furniihed  this  evi- 
dence,  when  they  were  but  in  part  made  ready,  that  is, 
before  they  were  baptized.  Hence  your  principle  brings 
you  to  this  felf  contradictory  conclufion,  that  perfons  are 
members  of  Chrift's  vifible  church,  and  at  the  fame  time 
are  not  mad6  ready  for  him.  For  it  was  by  preaching  the 
baptifm  of  repentance,  and  by  baptizing  the  penitents,  that 
John  made  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  Here 
is,  apon  your  own  principles,  a  difficulty,  which  I  know  not 


24  Letters  to  Rc-v.  Mr.  Anjihu        [Let.  .IV. 

how  to  furmount  or  remove  ;  whereas  upon  mine  there  is 
none,  unlel's  it  be  Ji  little  more  explanation  is  wanted. 

The  peniteats  who  were  baptised  of  John,  were  m>rje  • 
ready  and  prepared  for  the  vilible  church  ;  or  they  were 
the  unorganized  beginnings  of  it.  As  two,  or  as  twenty, 
approved  and  enlifted  foldiers,  who  are  thus  made  ready 
and  prepared  for  au  army,  which  ii,  about  to  be  formed,  arj 
not  the  army,  nnlefs  it  be  the  unorganized  beginnings  of  it ; 
fo,  or  in  a  limilar  ntuation,  are  John's  firft  difciplts,  if  not 
the  whole  of  thern,  confidered  to  have  been. 

In  your  fecond  Letter  you  aik  me  perhaps  a  dozen  quef- 
tions,  and  ftate  a  particular  cafe.     I  have  been,  and  am- 
ftill,  rather  at  uncertaii)ty,  whether  you  propofed  them  feri-  ■ 
ouily  or  not. 

If  you  be  ferious  in  the  inquiries, — "What  do  we  confider 
the  chara<Sers  of  our  candidates  for  baptifm  to  be  ? — What 
fiiould  we  think  of  a  perfon  who  propofed  to  be  baptized, 
and  afterwards  Ihould,  from  principle  or  from  an  erroneous 
confciencc,  refufe  ? — Whom  do  we  confider  to  be  members 
gf  the  vifible  church,  &c.  :"  Our  anfvver  is^ — i.  We  confider 
our  candidates  for  baptifm  to  be  vilible  faints.  2  A  perfon 
who  has  agreed  to  be  baptized,  and  lliould  afterwards, 
merely  from  error  of  judgment,  refufe  to  be,  would  ftill  be 
conlidered  a  vilible  ikint ;  but,  at  the  fame  time,  we  fhould 
believe  him  to  be  for  the  prefent  not  fit  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  for  he,  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  looked 
back.  3.  All  vilible  iaints,  who  have  been  baptized,  we 
eReem  to  be  members  of  Chrift's  vi.fible  church,  and  none 
elfe. 

Thefe  anfwers,  Sir,  being  carefully  attended  to,  will  folve 
all  other  queftions  upon  the  fubjed. 

Wilhing  you  light  to  fee  the  truth,  and  grace  to  praAife  it, 

I  am,  ike. 


LETTER   IV. 

RF.VEREND    SIR, 

THE  bufmefs  now  on  hand  is,  to  review  your  examina- 
tion of  my  definitions  and  arguments,  which  relate  to 
what  is  Chriftian  baptifm. 

On  fuppoficion  that  your  examination  has  been  candid, 
critical,  and  impartial,  you  have  nothing  to  fear  from  its 


Let.  IV.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujtin,  25 

being  carefully  reviewed.  If  your  examination  of  my  defi- 
nitions and  arguments  fhould  be  found  to  be  neither  candid, 
critical,  nor  impartial,  the  public  will  in  the  iflue  difcover 
where  the  fault  lies,  and  attach  blame  where  it  belongs. 

The  prefent  point  in  debate  you  define  well,  pages  19,  20. 
Say  you,  *'  The  debate  is  confined  to  a  fingle  point :  it  is 
this, — Whether  a  complete  immeriion  of  the  body  in  water, 
fo  that  it  Ihall  be  buried  or  overwhelmed  in  water,  be  the 
only  Chriftian  baptifm  ?"  This  is  the  thing  which  you  deny, 
but  it  is  what  I  confider  to  be  already  fairly  gained,  and 
from  which  I  exped  to  remove  ail  your  objections,  which 
have  any  plaufibility  againft  it. 

Permit  me  to  make  an  obfervation  or  two,  and  then  I 
fhall  proceed  to  the  bufinefs  before  us.  The  firft  obfervation 
is,  "  It  feems  (fay  yovi)  very  extraordinary  that  immerfion, 
as  the  only  Chriifian  baptifm,  Ihould  be  fo  clearly  and  un- 
ambiguoufly  taught,  as  much  or  more  fo  than  any  Chriftian 
duty ;  alms-giving,  for  inftance,  about  which  there  never 
was  any  difpute  ;  and  yet  yourfelf,  and  fuch  a  multitude  of 
pious,  learned,  and  refpeiflable  minifters,  and  the  pureft  and 
moft  enlightened  part  of  the  Chriftian  church,  fince  the 
reformation,  fhould  fo  long  remain  unconvinced  and  unre- 
claimed." 

Was  there  never  any  difpute  about  alms-giving  ?  If  not, 
whence,  I  pray  you,  arifes  the  large  quantity  of  warm  con- 
verfation  which  there  has  fometimes  been  in  the  world  about 
alms-giving,  for  the  poor,  and  other  charitable  ufes  ?  Some 
are  complained  of  for  their  covetoufnefs,  when  alms  are 
requefted  ;  fome  for  their  too  great  liberality  :  fome  will  be 
offended  becaufe  alms  are  requefted  :  fome  affirm  that  giv- 
ing money  or  goods  to  fuch  or  fuch  a  perfon,  is  alms-giving  ; 
others  will  deny  that  it  is  :  fome  will  contend,  that  to  give 
property  for  this  purpofe  or  for  that  purpofe,  is  alms-giving ; 
others  are  confident  that  it  is  no  deed  of  charity  to  part  with 
one's  money  to  promote  fuch  purpofes  :  'others  ftiil  may  be 
found,  who  will  not  allow  that  any  Chriib'an  duty  of  alms- 
giving is  performed,  unlefs  a  Chriftian  temper  be  exercifed 
in  the  performance.  Perhaps  there  is  fcarce  a  religious 
duty,  except  baptifm,  about  which  there  has  been  more  dif- 
pute, among  Paplfts  and  Proteftants,  and  among  Baptifts 
and  Fsedobaptifts,  than  the  duty  of  alms-giving.  It  feems 
extraordinary  that  you  Ihould  not  have  known  this  ;  and 
had  you  known  it,  you  could  not  have  mentioned  the  duty 
of  alms-giving,  with  the  Icaft  reafonable  expeclation,  that  by 
it  you  flioald  be  abk  to  refute  my  idea  of  tlie  clearuefs  and 


1i6  Leiiers  to  Rev.  Mr.  Au^in,       [Let.  IV. 

explicitnefs  of  the  duty  of  Cliriflian  baptifm  by  immerfion. 
Perluips  you  may  reply,  "  I  meant,  there  was  never  any 
(diipute  about  there  being  fuch  a  Chriftian  duty  as  alms- 
giving." Should  this  be  granted  as  a  general  trutli,  it  is 
equally  true  that  there  has  been  as  little  difpute  about  the 
exiftence  of  fuch  a  Chriftian  duty  as  baptifm.  It  may  be 
well  to  remark,  that  it  never  has  been  denied  in  any  age,  by 
any  denomination  of  Chriftians,  but  immerfion  is  Chriftian 
baptifpi,  when  it  has  been  adminiftereJ  by  a  proper  perfon, 
and  to  a  fuitable  fubjed.  Juic  the  fame  is  true  with  refpect 
to  alms-giving,  mutatis  mutandis. 

As  to  the  "  multitude  of  pious,  learned,  and  very  refpedl- 
able  minifters,  and  the  pureil  and  mod  enlightened  part  of 
the  Chriftian  church,  fmce  the  reformation,  remaining  fo 
long  unconvinced  and  unreclaimed,"  I  beg  leave  to  refer 
you  to  my  Letters  on  open  communion  with  all  who  keep 
the  ordinances  as  Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  faints. 

The  other  obfervatlon  whicli  I  have  to  make,  rehires  to  a 
pafTage  in  your  2 ad  page  :  it  is  this, — "  If  the  terms  \\'hich 
are  ufed  by  Chrift  and  his  apoftles,  when  referring  to  this 
ordinance,  have  one  uniform,  unambiguous  meaning,  which 
determines  baptifm  to  be  immerfion,  and  the  concurrent 
language  and  fa.5ls  of  fcripture  coincide  with  and  fupport 
this  meaning,  the  point  is  fettled.  We  are  not  left  to  a^  at 
d'fa'et'ton.  To  ma!:e  this  evident,  is  t]ie  objed  which  you 
fee  ycurfelf  to  accomplilh." 

Very  well,  Sir,  and  it  is  the  objtd  which  I  am  now  writ- 
iag  to  accompliih,  and  if  the  Lord  will,  I  Aall  inrtrumen- 
t.ally  m.ike  feme  progrefs  tovvards  its  accomplifliment. 

Now,  Sir,  f<  r  a  review  of  your  examination,  pages  22,  23. 
Your  profeffeJly  critical  examination  is  thus  introduced  : 
•'  You  begin  (fay  you  to  me)  by  what  you  call  defining  the 
terms,  and  by  detailing  to  us  all  the  paffages  in  the  New 
Teilament  which  fpeak  on  the  fubjed  of  baptifm.  Your 
fiifl  word  is  laftl/I.'loni  the  fignification  of  which  is,  a  font,, 
a  bath,  a  waihing  place,  a  velfel  to  wafh  the  body  in.  Very 
well,"  fay  you.  Juil  below  you  add,  "  If  it  (i.  e.  bapt)f.:non) 
were  in  an  hundred  places  in  the  New  Teflament,  it  would 
iurnirn  no  evidence  in  proof  of  your  propcfition."  AiiJ.  Let 
us.  Sir,  for  one  moment,  turn  the  tables,  and  fuppofe  that 
hapiiji.r'ton  favours  Jprinl'hng,  as  it  now  favours  immerfion, 
and  that  the  definition  of  it  were,  a  bafon,  a  porringer,  a 
fpriakling  place,  a  veifel  to  fprinkle  the  face  from;. would 
liere  be  no  circumClantial  evidence  in  favour  of  fprinkling  ? 
Would  not  iliis  fingle  word,  on  fuppoiuion  that  it  favoured. 


Let.  IV.]        Leiiers  to  Rei.  Mr.  Avjiln,  27 

your  praftice  as  it  does  curs,  be  more  evidence  for- you  than 
you  are  now  able  to  collecfl  from  all  writings,  eitlier  human 
or  divine  ?  Yet  it  furnifhes,  fay  you,  n'O  (circumftantial) 
evidence  for  us.  I  mentioned  it  as  a  mere  circumftance  in 
our  favour  ;  tlie  reader  will  jxidge  whether  it  be  fo.  My 
next  words  defined  were  ^a/zj/ma  and,  Z'^////?noj,  the  Englifh 
of  which  is  baptifm,  wafhing,  facred  ceremonial  waflirrtg. 
Here,  Sir,  you  leparated,  in  the  lad  part  oi  my  definition, 
what  I  wifli  to  have  underftood  as  being  joined  together. 
The  three  laft  words  are  exegetical  or  explanatory  of  th'6' 
firft,  and  iliew  the  kind  of  walhing  which  I  intend.  I  knOvsr 
not  how  you  could  lb  miftake  my  meaning,  as  to  fuppofe 
that  I  intended  common  waihing.  If  tlie  definition  itfelf 
were  fo  exprefled  that  it  was  pofiible  to  miflake  my 
meaning,  yet  what  was  faid  afterwards,  in  many  places, 
fliow  that  I  could  have  no  fuch  intention  as  you  intimate  ; 
indeed,  it  could  not  but  have  been  obvious  that  my  meiining 
was  not  common  wafiung :  for  the  facl:  is,  as  I  endeavoured 
to  ftow,  and  hope  m.oil  plainly  to  fhow,  that  the  Greek 
words  for  baptifrn  and  to  baptize  have  no  fuch  meaning  in 
tlie  Bible  as  common  wafliing.  I  find  no  place  in  your 
Lettei-s  where  you  Ihow  that  they  have  ;  and  I  expert  to 
Ihow  that  tliey  have  iiot. 

You  aflc,  "  But  is  there  no  ficred  cerem<>'nial  waifhing 
befides  immerfion  ?"  A><fi  No,  not  where  bnpttfma.,  bapujmos 
or  btiptlzo  is  in  the  original. 

Your  obfervation  upon  hapt'ijl'ts.  my  third  word  defined,  is, 
*<  You  know  that  this  word  fimply  means  a  baptizer."  But^' 
Sir,  the  queftion  is,  What  is  a  baptizer  ?  I  explained  or  de- 
fined it,  one  who  dips,  a  Baptill ;  I  now  add,  it  is,  flriclly 
fpeaking,  a  Baptift  minifter,  or  one  who  admiuifters  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  or  one  who  inunerfes.  Why  did  you 
omit  my  definition  \  was  it  becaufe  you  faw  no  plaufible 
refutation  ? 

In  the  next  place,  I  defined  haptizo  to  mean,  M'hen  ren- 
dered into  Englilh,  to  baptize,  to  dip  all  over,  to  wath. 

To  baptize  is,  indeed,  a  Greek  word,  fupplied  \vith  an 
Englifli  termination. 

Upon  my  definition  you  make  the  following  remark  : 
<•  The  firft  and  the  laft  of  thefe  definitions,  it  appears  to  me, 
you  might  as  well  have  omitted."  No,  Sir,  I  might  not  as 
•well  have  onritted  either,  or  efpecially  the  laft  ;  for  then 
you  might  juftly  have  complained,  but  noW  complaint  is 
afide,  for  J  gave  my  definitions  full ;  I  did  it  purpofely :  I 
gave  you  all  to  which  yOu  could  make  any  honourable  pre- 


a8  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujlln,       [Let.  IV. 

tenfions,  ia  that  when  thefe  were  fliown  to  fpeak  nothuig  for 
your  practice,  but  wholly  for  ours,  you  might  put  in  no 
farther  claim  ;  but  as  you  have,  your  claim  mull  be  ex- 
amined. 

"  Your  definitions  of  the  word  louot  to  wafh,  to  rinfe,  to 
bathe,  (fay  you  to  me)  feem  as  little  to  contribute  to  fup- 
port  your  hypothefis,  becaufe  it  is  indifputable  that  we  often 
wafh,  rinfe,  and  bathe,  without  immerfmg  totally  under 
•water  the  thing  or  body  waflied,  rinfed,  or  bathed."  But 
do  we  ever  waih,  rinfe,  or  bathe  by  Jpr'tnhl'mg  ? 

I  have  no  where  told  the  public  that  louo  always  implied 
immerfion,  nor  did  I  ever  intend  to  communicate  fuch  an 
idea.  It  was  and  is  ftill  quite  fufficient  for  my  purpofe,  to 
find  that  louo  is  never  ufed  in  the  Bible,  or  in  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  to  mean  any  tiling  Ihort  of  bathing  a  body  or  thing 
all  over. 

"  But  now,"  fay  you,  page  25,  *'  for  your  proof  of  the  fpe- 
cific,  uniform,  unambiguous  meaning  of  the  word  hnpUxOf 
as  fignifying  total  immerfion.  You  fay,  page  37,  '  the  plain, 
literal  meaning  and  common  fignification  of  the  word  is  to 
immerfe,  overwhelm,  dip,  or  plunge  all  over  ;  and  that  there 
appears  to  be  no  evidence  that  it  is  ever  ufed  fo  much  as 
once^  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  to  fignify  the  application  of 
water  in  any  other  fenfe.'  But  this  is  not  proof,  my  dear 
Sir,  it  is  your  a/fertion.  I  am  conftrained  to  deny  the  cor- 
reiftnefs  of  it."  yinf.  Then,  Sir,  we  may  expeift  to  find  that 
in  your  Letters  the  matter  (lands  correded.  We  will  pro- 
ceed in  the  review. 

In  the  26th  page  of  your  Letters,  the  public  is  informed, 
that  the  "  Uriel  truth,  however,  is,  that  it  [hapti-2.o)  does  not 
fignify  any  manner  of  applying  water,  but  only  the  applica- 
tion of  it  in  general."  I  confefs,  Sir,  that  this  aiTertion, 
coming  from  a  man  of  your  fenfe,  education,  and  veracity, 
is  a  little  to  be  wondered  at.  But  if  this  a/Fertion  be  fup- 
portable,  we  may  undoubtedly  expeft  to  find  it  proved  in 
fome  of  your  Letters  ;  that  bapiizo  is  nfed  in  fome  one  in- 
flance  in  which  it  fliall  manifeilly  mean  fome  application  of 
water  which  does  not  and  cannot  imply  immerfion.  We 
hope  to  examine  carefully. 

Your  next  words  are  fufficlently  noticeable  :  they  are 
thefe, — "  As  your  initial  proof  is  thus  found  to  confift  ia 
mere  a/fertion,  I  had  thought  of  leaving  it,  as  fufficiently 
refuted  by  a  contrary  affertion."  This,  Sir,  brings  to  my 
mind  what  Ahab  faid  to  Benhadad,  '  Let  not  him  that 
girdetJi  on  the  harnefs  boaft  himfelf  as  he  that  puttcth  it  off.* 


Let.  IV.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Auflin.  29 

The  next  bufinefs  which  you  undertake,  is  to  make,  in 
jny  judgment,  an  unnatural  and  a  fomewhat  dangerous 
addition  to  every  text  of  Scripture  in  which  the  word  baptizo 
is  ufed.  To  each  you  add,  by  affufion.  This  bufmefs,  which 
fills  your  pages  from  the  27th  to  the  33d,  I  fhall  leave  to 
the  refledion  of  your  readers,  and  turn  my  attention  to  your 
own  obfervations  on  what  you  had  done.  It  is  pleafing,  my 
dear  Sir,  that  you  do  not  appear  fully  fatisfied  with  what 
you  have  done :  I  defire  that  you  may  be  lefs  and  Icfs  fatis- 
fied, till  you  fhall  be  altogether  diffatisfied. 

You  conclude  that  the  connexion  in  which  the  word  lap' 
/izo  is  ufed,  does  not  preclude  the  poffibility  of  baptifm 
being  adminiftered  by  aifufion.  You  do  not  intimate  in  youf 
premifes,  from  which  you  draw  your  conclufion,  that  there 
is  a  probability  that  the  oi'dinance  was  ever  adminiftered  by 
affufion,  but  that  there  is  a  pojjibility.  Hence  you  conclude, 
«*  that  if  this  be  admitted  as  a  pojfihle  thing,  it  is  evident  that 
•my  aflertion,  refpeding  the  uniform,  exclufive  meaning  of 
the  word,  as  fignifying  immerfion,  and  that  only,  is  entirely 
without  foundation." 

Here,  Sir,  either  your  judgment  or  mine  is  incorrect :  for 
in  my  judgment,  I  may  admit  your  premifes,  without  fear- 
ing the  conclufion.  I  would  reft  the  whole  caufe,  or  had  I 
liberty,  I  might  fafely  do  it,  upon  this  fingle  point,  that  it 
fhould  be  forfaken,  if  your  premifes,  upon  their  being  true,  would 
harm  it.  Your  premifes  are, — firft,  that  there  is  ?l  poffibility^ 
from  the  connexion  in  which  baptizo  is  ufed,  that  baptifm  was 
adminiftered  by  aflFufion  ;  fecondly,  that  there  is  no  probabil- 
ityt  from  the  connexion  in  which  baptizo  is  ufed,  that  it  was 
ever  adminiftered  in  that  way. 

Now,  Sir,  can  you  have  a  fingle  query  in  your  mind, 
whether  a  gofpel  ordinance,  which  hath  nothing  for  its  au- 
thority but  pofitive  precepts,  may  not  be  duly  adminiftered, 
according  to  the  precepts  and  pattern  given,  when  it  is,  at 
the  fame  time,  adminiftered  in  a  manner  which  cannot  be 
fupported,  even  by  a  probability  arifing  from  fo  much  as 
one  text  out  of  fifty,  which  contain  precepts  or  examplea 
relative  to  the  pofitive  ordinance  enjoined  ?  In  all  fuch  moral 
cafes,  where,  from  the  connexion  of  any  pofitive  law  or 
ordinance,  there  may  be  a  poffibility  of  any  certain  thing 
being  enjoined,  yet  if  there  be  no  probability  of  it,  it  amounts 
to  a  moral  demonftration,  that  no  fuch  duty  was  or  is  en- 
joined, unlefs  we  would  refleft  the  higheft  reproach  upon 
.the  Lawgiver, 


30  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlin.        [Let.  IV. 

All  which  I  need  to  eftablifh  the  point,  vsMth  all  who  fuit- 
ably  honour  the  Scriptures  and  the  Chrillian  Lawgiver,  is, 
to  prove  that  the  literal,  tlie  plain,  the  common  lenle  of  the 
Scripture  is,  that  to  be  buried  or  overwhelmed  in  water  is 
the  only  Chriftian  baptifm.  Ten  thoufand  poffibilities  for 
any  thing  elfe,  arifing  from  the  connexion  of  any  text  in 
which  the  word  baplizo  is  ufed,  would  not  alter  the  matter 
HU  hair's  breadth. 

Befides,  Sir,  you  confefs  that  in  fome  inftances  there  ap- 
pears an  harjlmefs  in  the  fupply,  by  afFulion,  arifmg  from  the 
connexion :  and  you  do  not  prefume  to  fay  that  it  is  eafy 
and  natural  in  any,  fave  in  thofe  paffages  which  refer  to  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  of  which  fay  you,  nvater  hapt'tfm 
is  undoultedly  a  JymboL  Hence,  if  I  prove  from  your  own 
conceffions,  that  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofl;  means  im- 
merfion  or  overwhelming,  you  will  yield  the  point  in  con- 
troverfy,  or  renew  it  tinder  increafed  difadvantagcs. 

Now,  Sir,  to  the  point.  What  is  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  judging  from  your  own  conceffions,  as  well  as  from 
the  word  of  God  ?  Your  Letters  to  me  Ihall  give  the 
anfwer. 

Speaking  of  Rom.  vi,  4.  you  fay,  page  45,  "  The  fpiritual, 
internal  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  exadly  coincides  with 
the  whole  of  his  (the  apoftle's)  reprefentation,  and  invari- 
ably produces  the  effefts  he  mentions." 

In  page  48,  fpeaking  of  Col.  ii.  12.  your  words  are,  "  It 
is  juft  like  the  other,"  i.  e.  it  is  juft  like  the  above  palFage, 
Rom.  vi.  4. 

In  the  pafTage  which  we  have  been  juft  confidering,  pages 
33>  34'  y*^^  ^^^^  ^5'  "Water  baptilm  is  undoubtedly  a  fym- 
bol  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  is  a  figurative 
baptifm;"  pages  60,  61. 

In  page  60  you  have  thefe  words, — "  There  muft  be  fome 
evident  Ukenefs  between  the  fubjedl  to  which  a  word  is  applied, 
in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubje<^  to 
which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure  ;  otherwile  there  is  a  grofs  im- 
propriety in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

Now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  put  thefe  ideas,  conceflions,  and 
declarations  of  yours  together. 

I.  To  be  buried  •v^'iih  Chrift  in  baptifm,  to  be  planted  in 
the  likenefs  of  his  death,  to  be  buried  with  him  by  baptifm, 
and  to  be  rifen  with  him  in  baptifm,  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and 
Col.  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  or  the 
«'  baptifm  of  the  Holj  Ghoft  exaiftly  coincides  with  this 
reprelentatioo." 


Let.  v.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.  33 

it  efpecially  relates  to  him  ;  the  confeqiience  is  obvious, — it 
is,  that  John  was  imnierfed  at  every  adminiftration  of  the 
ordinance."  A  perlon  who  can  allert  thus  roundly,  without 
fo  much  as  a  fhow  of  evidence,  and  call  it  arguing,  may  be 
expeded  to  find  fome  fault  with  the  affertions  and  pretended 
arguings  of  his  opponents.  But,  Sir,  I  have  a  little  more 
to  fay  of  this  argument  of  yours,  by  which  you  would  de- 
ftroy  my  evidence  from  Scripture.  You  fay,  "  This  confe- 
quence  is  too  unpleafant  to  be  eafily  received."  What  con-- 
fequence  ?  The  one  which  you  had  jufl;  drawn,  "  That  John 
was  himfelf  immerfed  at  every  adminiftration  of  the  ordi- 
nance." This  confequence  you  draw  from  your  own  prem- 
ife,  "  that  the  prepoiition  in  relates  efpecially  to  John," 
together  with  my  definition  of  hapti%d,  that  it  is  to  immerfe. 
Now  take  your  own  premife  and  your  own  definition,  if 
you  have  any,  or  take  your  afTertion,  that  baptizo  is  a  gene- 
ric term,  and  means  not  any  particular  kind  of  wafhing, 
but  walhing  in  general,  or  any  application  of  water :  and 
■what  is  the  confequence  ?  "  The  confequence  may  be  un- 
pleafant, and  too  unpleafant  to  be  eafily  received  :"  but  as 
unpleafant  as  it  may  be,  I  lliall  fet  it  down,  and  the  world 
will  judge  on  which  fide  the  unpleafantnefs  falls.  The 
confequence  is — If  John  baptized  by  affufion  every  time  he 
adminiftered  the  ordinance,  he  aiFufed  or  poured  water  on 
himfelf:  if  he  baptized  by  fprinkling,  then  at  every  admln- 
illration  he  was  fprinkled  himfelf;  if  he  ufed  water  in  any 
other  way,  in  the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance,  in  the 
f<ime  way  the  water  came  on  himfelf.  Thus,  Sir,  your  own 
argument  makes  nonfenfe'of  John's  baptifm,  take  it  in  any 
way  which  you  pleafe.  Either  John's  baptifm  muft  be 
given  up  in  whole,  or  your  method  of  managing  it. 

In  page  36,  you  are  plcafed  to  exprefs  yourfelf  thus: 
"  You  next,  for  lack  of  proof,  go  on  to  repeat  your  afler* 
tions."  And  how  do  you  know  "  it  ivas  for  lack  of  proof  ?^^ 
Is  it  always  the  cafe  with  you,  when  in  your  fermons  you 
recapitulate  fome  particulars  which  you  had  paifed  overi 
that  you  do  it  for  lack  of  proof?  If  not,  your  accufation 
againft  me  may  not  be  well  founded,  A  little  afterwards^ 
fpeaking  of  my  recapitulation,  you  fubjoin,  "  My  dear  Sir, 
repetitions  and  affertions  are  not  arguments.  We  aflc  of 
you  proof."  Proof,  Sir,  you  may  exped  ;  proof  of  two 
kinds  :  proof  that  your  examination  of  my  Sermons  was  not 
well  founded,  and  proof  that  no  fimilar  oppofition  will  be 
able  to  injure  the  leading  fentimencs  which  they  contain. 
I>  2. 


34  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aiijiin.        [Let.  V. 

My  third  argument  was  to  tliis  purport :  Bapti%d  and 
baptijhosf  though  they  be  moft  ufually  rendered  to  baptize 
and  baptifm,  yet  they  fometimes  fignify  to  vrafli ;  but  when 
thts  is  their  figniiication,  the  wafhing  fpoken  of  is  never 
common  wafhing,  but  ceremonial ;  which  is  bathing  the 
thing  in  water,  or  putting  it  all  over  in  water.  Upon  this 
you  fee  fit  to  obferve,  in  not  a  very  handfome  manner,  thus, 
*'  But  how  you  could  ftumble  upon  this,  as  an  argument,  is 
incomprehenfible." 

My  readers,  Sir,  can  generally  underftand  me.     As  to 
this  argument,  which  you  fay  is  incomprehenfible,  I  will  fet 
it  before  you  with   mathematical  plainnefs.     Baptizo   and 
baptifmos  equal  two  tranilations,  baptizing  and  a  certain  kind 
of  wafliing  ;  this  certain  kind  of  wafhing  equals  ceremonial 
wafhing,  which  is  to  bathe  a  thing  all  over  in  water,  or  to 
put  into  water.  Lev.  xi.  32.  ;  to  bathe  a  thing  all  over  in 
water,   or  to  put  into  water,  equals  immerfion  :  tlierefore, 
to  baptize  equals  to  immerfe,  and  immerfion  equals  baptifm. 
But,  Sir,  your  anfwer  is   ready,  and  it  is  this, — "  Baptlzo 
equals  nipto,   and  nlpto  equals  common  wafhing."     Now, 
Sir,  fhow  me  in  any  paiTage  of  the  New  Teftament,  where 
this  fliort  chain  of  yours,  of  only  three  links,   is  fupported, 
or  can  be  by  plain  afiirmation  or  fair  deduflion,  and  I  will 
confefs  that  I  have  run  my  claim  too  high.     It  is  eafy  to 
fhow  you  where  you  will  go  for  proof,  and  it  is  equally  eafy 
to  {how  you  that  it  is  not  in  point.     You  will  diredly  repair 
to  Mark  vii.  or  to  Luke  xi.     Very  welL     What  do  you  find 
here  ?    In  Mark  you  find,  that  the  Pharifces,  except  they 
wafh  they  eat  not ;  this  was  a  conftant  ceremony  among 
them,  and  nipto  is  ufed.     And  when  they  come  from  the 
MARKET,  except  they  wafh  (baptize,  or  bathe  themfelves  all 
over  in  water)  they  eat  not.     This  is  their  extraordinary 
ceremony  or  tradition.     This  was  to  be  obferved  when  they 
had  been  to  the  market,  or  to  a  pomifcuous  aifembly,  where 
clean  and  unclean  perfons  were  aflembled.     This  takes  up 
the  pafiages  in  Luke  xi.   as  well  as  Mark  vii.     Now,  Sir, 
you,  and  thofe  who  have  written  before  you  on  your  inde- 
fenfible  ground,  would  palra  it  upon  both  learned  and  un- 
learned, upon  both  faint  and  finner,  that  the  circumftances 
are  fo  fimilar,  in  which  nipto  and  in  which  baptizo  are  ufed, 
that  the  words  are  equivalent,  when  the  very  texts  them- 
felves intimate  to  you  that  it  is  no  fuch  thing.     One  half 
of  your  fuppofed  ftrength,  and  imaginary  triumph,  is  found- 
ed upon  your  miftaking,  or  willingly  not  iinderftanding,  the 
above  paffages.    Would  you  bring  us  half  fo  much  evi- 


Let.  v.]         Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.  3 1 

2.  "  There  is  an  e'u'ulcnt  likenefs  between  the  natural  idea 
of  planting,  burying,  and  rljing  as  from  the  dead,  and  the 
figurative  baptiim  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  (as  you  fay)  in  the  apoftle's  figurative  ufe  of  the 
words." 

3.  Water  baptifm  is  a  fynibol  or  figure  of  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  burying,  a  planting, 
or  immerfion, — your  Letters,  as  well  as  the  word  of  God, 
being  judge. 

Hence,  Sir,  by  going  a  large  diftance  round,  to  avoid 
what  you  feared,  you  have  proved,  to  my  hand,  what  I 
endeavoured  to  eftabliih  through  the  courfe  of  five  fennons. 

Though  I  approve  of  tlie  conclufion  to  which  y.ou  have 
brought  me,  yet  I  cannot  fay  that  I  confent  to  all  your 
premifes.  You  appear  to  me  to  be  incorre<Sl,  in  fetting  down 
the  paffages  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  as  containing 
inllances  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Should  you 
ever  in  the  world  be  a  thorough  Baptift,  or  if  not,  when  the 
light  of  heaven  ftiall  give  you  light,  you  will,  if  I  mfftake 
not,  fee  very  clearly  water  baptifm  pointed  out  in  both  thefe 
chapters. 

If  you  can  honeftly  get  by  the  above  argument,  and  ft  ill 
retain  your  ground,  I  wilh  you  to  :  but  fliould  the  argument 
be  found  impaiPable,  then  cheerfully  concede  that  truth  is 
ftronger  than  man,  and  yield  to  her  fovereign  mandate. 
He  who  is  willingly  conquered  by  truth,  is  a  conqueror 
himfelf. 

I  am  fincerely  yours,  &c. 


LETTER    V. 

REVEREND    SIR, 

N  your  fourth  Letter  you  manifeftly  difcovered  a  diflike 

to  my  aifertions  and  arguments.     In  this  I   pi-opofe  to 

give  my  readers  fome  Ihort  notices  of  what  I  did,  both  as 
to  argument  and  affertion  ;  and  alfo  fet  to  view  how  you 
attempted  to  wind  yourfelf  out,  and  how,  by  the  attempt, 
you  have  wound  yourfelf  up  in  them. 

My  firft  argument,  to  prove  that  the  Greek  word  bapti%o 
means  to  immerfe,  bury,  &c.  was — The  moft  learned  critics 
in  the  Greek  and  EngliHi  languages,  bear  their  united  tefti- 
mony,  generally  fpeakiag,  againft  your  praftice,  againfttheir 


32  Letters  to  Re-v.  Mr.  Aufibu         [Let.  V. 

CVn,  and  for  the  Bapllfts,  that  the  common,  the  plain,  the 
literal  fenfe  of  the  word  is  as  I  had  given  it^  Your  reply  is, 
"  To  have  recourfe  to  fucli  miierablc  authorities,  to  deter- 
mine relative  to  an  eireniial  and  tfj:cluiive  article  of  Chriftian 
do<5trine,  is  not  the  moll  refpeftful  treatment  of  die  great 
Infpirer  of  the  Bibl*."  The  only  end  which  I  had  to  an- 
fwer,  by  quoting  the  dehniiioLS  and  critical  remarks  of 
critical  and  learned  men,  was  to  afcertain  the  definition  of 
a  word.  Do  you  fuppofe,  Sir,  that  I  and  the  reft  of  your 
readers,  were  all  of  us  bom  with  innate  notions,  anfwering 
to  all  the  ideas  meant  to  be  communicated  by  all  the  He- 
brew, Syriac,  Arabic,  and  Greek  words  in  the  Bible  ?  If 
this  be  not  your  belief,  then  you  know  that  you  and  I,  and 
our  readers  too,  muft  gain  fome  of  our  fir  ft  knowledge  from 
critics,  or  from  compilers  of  diiflionaries,  lexicons,  and  other 
writings  of  men,  &c.  When  we  have  gained  >vhat  knowl- 
edge is  at  hand,  as  to  the  meaning  of  any  word,  and  our 
eonfequent  duty,  as  related  by  the  beft  of  men  ;  yet  if  there 
be  any  more  fure  word  of  prophecy,  we  fhould,  as  did  the 
Bereans,  take  heed  to  it.  Accordingly  I  did  in  the  fecond 
place  turn  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  in  which  I  found  it 
thus  written,  Mark  i.  5.  « And  there  went  out  unto  him 
(John)  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerufalem,  and 
were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan.'  Thus, 
8ir,  by  comparing  the  teftimony  of  learned  men  and  the 
fure  word  of  prophecy  together,  I  find  they  both  agree,  and 
therefore  believe  both. 

But,  Sir,  what  fhall  I  fay  to  your  reply  ?  Shall  I  tell  the 
learned  world  that  Mr.  S.  Auftin,  who  would  not  allow  me 
to  conjoin  the  teftimony  of  learned  critics  with  that  of  the 
word  of  God,  in  order  to  make  fure  the  definition  of  a  word 
which  he  is  difpofed  to  controvert,  dares  himfelf  to  confront 

flain  Scripture  with  many  great  but  namelefs  critics  ?  Shall 
tell  it  in  Afkelon,  or  publifh  It  in  Gath,  that  the  fame  Mr. 
Auftin,  who  will  not  allow  a  didlionary,  lexicon,  or  con- 
cordance, each  fandioned  by  the  learned  world,  to  fay  one 
word,  dare  fpoil  the  plain,  literal,  common,  and  only  fenfe 
ef  a  plain  paifage  of  Scripture,  when  all  the  authority  which 
he  pretends  to  poftefs  is,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  maiTy  great 
critics,  that  John  adually  did  baptize  in  the  river  of  Jordan 
by  affufion  ?  Shall  I  tell  the  fame  learned  world,  that  the 
fame  Mr.  Auftin  afferts,  in  his  public  Letters  to  me,  page  35, 
•*  That  the  fuppofed  evidence  of  this  paflage  muft  lie  wholly 
in  the  prepofition  in,  and  that  applies  to  John  as  really  as  to 
tlie  fubje(5ts  of  his  adminiftration  ?"  "  IJay,  (fays  Mr.  Auftin) 


Let.  VI.]       Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujiin,  37 

account  of  fome  apparent  difficulty.  You  exprefs  it  thus : 
"  If  you  will  tuny  to  Rev.  i.  5.  you  will  find  another  exam- 
ple, clearly  againft  what  you  afifert,  refpefting  louo.  The 
word  is  lekufanti.  You  will  not  pretend  that  Chrift  ever 
waflied  his  people  in  his  own  blood  by  immerfing  them  in 
it ;  this  is  a  natural  impoffibility  ;  the  word  here  I  grant  is 
ufed  figuratitely."  Very  well,  Sir,  and  are  they  not  cleanfed 
thoroughly  ?  If  fo,  they  are  figuratively  waflied  ail  over.. 
This  is  all  that  I  aflt  you  to  grant. 

Your  other  obfervations,  in  your  fourth  Letter,  are  fup- 
pofed  to  be  anfwered,  and  fo  fufficlently  reviewed  by  what  is 
already  faid. 

I  will  now  ftate  the  bufuiefs,  fo  far  as  it  appears  to  (land 
for  the  prefent  unembarraifed  by  your  examination.  Baptizo 
is  to  immerfe,  bury,  overwhelm,  &c.  ;  loud  never  means  any 
thing  lefs  than  to  wafh  a  thing  all  over.  The  Holy  Spirit 
hath  made  ui'e  of  both  thefe  words,  and  of  thefe  only,  with 
their  derivatives,  except  in  John  iii.  5.  to  defignate  baptifm : 
hence,  baptifm  can  mean  nothing  lels  than  walhing  the  body 
all  over,  or  immerfing  it,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghoft.  There  is  no  denomination  in  the  world 
who  praftifes  this  baptifm,  but  thofe  who  are  Baptifts  as  to 
the  adminiftration  of  the  ordinance  :  hence  thofe  and  thofe 
only  who  baptize  by  immerfion,  adminifter  the  Chriftian 
ordinance  of  baptifm. 

Wifhing  you  more  light,  love,  and  knowledge  than  the 
t^riter  poffeffes, 

I  remain  yours,  &c. 


LETTER   VL 

REVEREND     SIR, 

IT  is  nianifeftly  a  matter  of  importance  with  you,  that 
the  world  Ihould  confider  Paul,  where  he  fpeaks  of 
baptifm,  Rom.  vi.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  to  intend  the  baptifm  of 
the' Holy  Ghoft.  It  is,  indeed,  to  your  theory  of  baptifm, 
a  matter  of  the  greateft  magnitude,  to  have  thefe  pafiages 
refer  to  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  for  if  they  do  not, 
they  are  as  a  great  mill-ftone,  bound  about  the  neck  of  all 
your  arguments,  and  drown  them  all  as  in  the  fea.  So 
long  as  you  can  perfuade  the  prejudiced  and  inattentive  to 
difbelieve  the  plain  import  of  the  apoftle'a  words  and  veafon- 


38  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  AuJIim        [Let.  VI. 

ings,  fo  long  you  may  prevent  their  feeling  the  force  of  thefe 
paifages.^  But  what  will  the  world  think  of  your  reafonings, 
and  the  blindnefs  which  they  gather  from  them,  provided  it 
be  here  Ihown,  as  it.indeed  hath  already  been,  that  though 
we  grant  all  your  premifes,  the  conclufion  from  them  is 
fairly  and  undeniably  this, — that  immerfion  is  the  only  gof- 
pel  baptifm.  All  your  objedlion  againft  allowing  that  the 
apoftle,  in  Romans  and  Coloflians,  alludes  to  and  intends 
water  .  baptifm,  is  confidered  to  arife  from  an  apprehenfion 
that  imm.erlion  would  certainly  follow.  But  we  will  attend 
to  your  premifes. 

In  pages  33,  34,  your  words  are,  Water  baptifm  is  un- 
doubtedly a  fymbol  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Pages  44,  45,  you  inform  us  that  thefe  paffages,  To  be 
buried  with  Chriit  by  baptifm  into  death,  to  be  buried  with 
Chrift  in  baptifm,  and  to  be  raifed  with  him  in  baptifm, 
according  to  Rom.  vi.  4.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  can  never  be 
proved  to  have  any  refpeft  or  even  allufion  to  external  water 
baptifm. 

Again  you  tell  us,  page  60,  "  There  muft  be  fome  evi- 
dent likenefs,  between  the  fubjeft  to  which  a  word  is  applied 
in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubjed  to 
which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

Hence,  Sir,  baptifm  is  fpoken  of  under  the  fimllitude  or 
figure  of  burying  and  rifmg  again.  You  reply.  This  is  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  Grant  it :  yet  you  tell  us, 
Water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly  a  fymbol  (i.  e.  an  emblem  or 
figure)  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  You  may  add. 
There  is  no  likenefs  between  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
and  burying  and  rifing  again.  But,  Sir,  you  have  declared 
to  us,  that  "  there  muft  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  a 
fubjed  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the  natural  and  primi- 
tive ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubjed  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a 
figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative 
ufe  of  it." 

Now,  Sir,  I  fee  but  two  things  between  which  you  muft 
choofe ;  either,  i.  That  water  baptifm  hath  an  evident  like- 
nefs. to  a  burial  and  refurredtion  ;  or,  2.  That  the  apoftle 
was  guilty  of  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  which 
he  made  of  the  words  burying  and  the  refurreftion.  Take 
which  you  pleafe. 

You  will  pleafe  to  review  your  aftertion,  page  47,  "  That 
the  above  texts  in  Romans  and  Coloifians,  do  not  even  fur- 
nifli  the  ihadow  of  proof  for  baptifm  by  immerfion." 


Let.  v.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujiin,  2i5 

dence  for  you,  as  there  is  in  thefe  two  paffages  againft 
you,  we  would  allow  you  fomething  plautible.  But,  Sir, 
till  you  (how  us  where  bapiizo  and  niptd  are  equivalent,  we 
wifli  you  would  fay  lefs  about  it,  and  take  lefs  credit  for  the 
fuppofed  equivalency  of  them.  Equate  them,  or  make  them 
equal,  if  you  can  :  when  you  do  it,  we  will  be  filent,  or 
make  conceflions :  till  you  do  this,  common  civility  impofes 
filence  on  you.  The  other  half  of  your  fuppofed  ftrength, 
I  hope  to  remove  out  of  your  way  as  I  come  to  it. 

The  next  thing  which  requires  to  be  noticed,  in  your 
examination,  is  my  definition  of  the  word  louo,  and  your 
obfervations  relating  to  my  definition.  My  definition  of  louo 
was,  and  ftill  is,  to  bathe  or  wafti  a  thing  all  over.  You 
add  to  my  words,  and  fay  "  that  I  intend  immerfion."  I 
do  not ;  nor  did  I  ever  intend  to  define  louo  as  always  mean- 
ing immerfion.  All  which  I  have  faid  is  this,  that  louo  al- 
ways imports  a  wafhing  of  the  thing  or  fubjeft  all  over. 
You  fubjoin,  "  If  I  will  turn  to  John  xlli.  lo.  I  fhali  find  evi- 
dence dire(5lly  and  conclufively  againft  this  idea."  Againft 
what  idea  ?  Againft  immerfion.  This  idea  of  immerfion, 
as  being  the  exclufive  fenfe  of  louo,  I  never  advocated.  But 
we  will  take  the  text  into  confideration  :  it  is  this, — '  Jefus 
faith  to  him,  He  that  is  wafhed  (o  hloumenos)  needeth  not 
fave  to  wafh  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit.'  Here  you 
fay,  "  the  man  is  wafhed,  when  only  his  feet  are  wafhed.'* 
Do  you  mean  to  contradid:  the  text  I  or,  Do  you  mean  that 
the  text,  by  a  figure  of  fpeech,  which  puts  a  part  for  the 
whole,  fays  the  man  is  wafhed,  when  it  intends  the  feet  only 
are  wafhed  ?  The  text  does  not  appear  to  be  perfedly  eafy 
to  be  underflood ;  its- purport  appears  to  be,  either  jfr/?, 
That  Peter  had  already  been  baptized,  {leloumenos)  and  fo 
now  had  no  need  to  have  his  body,  as  Paul  expreffes  it, 
wafhed  with  pure  water  ;  but  it  was  fufficient  for  the  objeA 
that  the  Saviour  had  at  this  time  in  view,  that  his  feet  be 
waihed, — as  that  would  be  fufficient,  to  manifeft  the  Sav- 
iour's condefcenfion,  and  to  teach  his  followers  humility: 
or,  fecondly.  The  meaning  might  be,  tliat  leloumenos  refeired, 
by  a  figure,  to  the  waftiing  of  the  man,  when  it  intended 
the  wafhing  of  the  feet  only.  But  upon  either  fuppofition, 
it  comes  to  the  fame  thing,  as  to  my  argument  from  it, 
unlefs  you  can  fliow  that  the  feet  were  but  partially  wafhed. 
For  all  which  I  fay  or  wifh  to  maintain  is,  that  whenever 
louo  is  ufed  to  import  the  wafhing  of  any  thing  whatever,  it 
intends  that  the  thing  is  wafiied  all  over.  Should  you  upon 
this  conc«0iou  fay,  and  I  grant  it  in  this  inilance,  ^d  in 


36  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.         [Let.  V. 

many  more,  that  loud,  and  nipto  are  equivalent ;  would  it 
either  help  you  or  harm  me  ;  would  it  be  to  your  purpofe  at 
all  ?  If  you  conlidcr  it  to  be  fo,  I  will  grant  it ;  for  I  purpofe 
to  allow  you  every  inch  of  ground  to  which  you  can  appa- 
rently make  any  juft  claim. 

We  muft  now  compare  things  accurately. 

Bapt'izd  is  equal  to  immerfion,  and  to  nothing  fhort  of  it. 
Loud  is  fometimes  equal  to  bnpiizo  ;  then  louo  is  fometimes 
equal  to  immerfion,  as  when  Paul  fiiys,  our  bodies  (leloumenoi). 
walhed  with  pure  water.  Louo  is  fometimes  equal  to  nipto  ; 
nipto  is  equal  to  the  wafhing  of  part  of  the  human  body  ;• 
therefore,  and  what  ?  This,  Sir, — firft,  that  fiipto  and  touo- 
may  have  the  fame  import ;  and  fecondly,  that  when  /iipt9 
and  iouo  agree,  they  neither  of  them  agree  with  bapti%d ;. 
therefore,  and  what  ?  This,  Sir, — that  your  argument  comes 
to  juft  what  it  jhould,  to  nothing. 

Would  you  obtain  the  leaft  advantage  from  the  fignifica- 
tion  of  the  word  louo,  you  muft  prove  one  of  thefe  two 
things, — either  i.  That  loud  never  intends  immerfion,  and 
yet  is  fometimes  equivalent  to  baptizo  \  or  2.  That  louo,  m 
ibme  certain  place  or  places,  where  it  is  fubftituted  for 
bapti%o,  fignifies  not  immerfion,  but  fomething  fhort  of  it* 
But  could  you  do  this,  which  you  neither  have  done  nor 
can  do,  ftill  nothing  would  be  gair.ed,  unlefs  it  be-this,  that 
it  would  embarrafs  my  principle,  witliout  helping  your 
own ;  for  neither  bapiizd,  loud,  nor  nlptd,  is  ever  ufed  for 
ranfizd  or  for  fprinkUug. 

You  proceed,  Sir,  in  your  examination,  to  tell  us,  "  That 
it  is  not  probable  that  the  dead  body  of  Dorcas  was  im- 
merfed ;  that  it  would  have  been  a  bad  way  to  have  im- 
merfed  Paul  and  Silas,  in  order  to  bathe  their  ftripes ;  and 
you  can  hardly  perfuade  yourfelf,  that  the  cuftom,  in  thofe 
days,  of  wafhing  the  fow  from  her  filth,  was  to  immerfe 
thofe  animals."  * 

Ail  this  trouble,  Sir,  you  have,  either  through  my  fault, 
in  exprefting  myfelf  without  fuihcient  perfpicuity,  or  through 
yours,  in  adding  to  my  words  ;  for  I  never  intended  any 
fuch  thing.  What  I  wifhed  for  is  juft  this, — To  fhow  that 
loud  never  meant  any  thing  lefs  than  the  wafhing  of  the  body 
or  thing  all  over.  The  world  muft  judge,  and  we  fhall  both 
one  day,  whether  you  have  deduced  a  fingle  circumftance 
to  invalidate  the  idea  which  I  advanced ;  if  you  have  not, 
my  Sermons  yet  appear  uninjured  by  your  examination. 

One  pafl'age  which  I  paiTed  over,  in  page  .39,  I  will  here 
mention,  left  you  fbould  imagine  that  I  wifh  to  avoid  it,  on 


Let.  VI.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Anjiin,  39 

In  the  clofe  of  your  fifth  Letter  you  fet  down  thefe  mem- 
orable words  :  "  All  your  potent  reafoning  here,  in  a  few 
words,  is  this — The  word  bapii^o  means  to  immerfe,  there- 
fore the  apofUes,  becaufe  they  were  commanded  to  baptize, 
pradifed  immerfion,  and  their  praiflice  of  immerfion  in  bap- 
tizing proves  that  bapti%o  means  to  immerfe.  Whether  this 
be  arguing  in  a  circle,  or  arguing  at  all,  I  entreat  you  to 
confider,  take  advice,  and  /peak  your  mind." 

Sir,  I  have  confidered,  and  find  that  you  have  given  a 
partial  ftatement  of  my  poor  arguing,  if  I  argued  at  all.  I 
have  taken  advice  of  that  part  of  ray  third  Sermon  which 
you  are  profeifedly  examining.  Now,  Sir,  I  will  fpeak  my 
mind.  It  is,  Jirjif  That  your  critical  readers  will  doubt  the 
corre6lnefs  of  your  concluding  affertion,  (which  is  quoted 
above,)  judging  from  the  quotations  which  you  have  made 
from  my  Sermons,  pages  36,  37,  38,  39.  Secondly,  My 
mind  is,  that  an  argument  is  good,  though  of  a  circular 
form,  provided  every  part  contains  its  own  proper  evidence. 
My  mind  is,  thirdly.  That  it  is  a  good  rule,  to  put  in  the 
middle  of  our  arguing  thofe  particulars  on  which  we  place 
the  leaf!:  dependence,  and  that  in  the  beginning  and  clofe  of 
any  and  eyerj  arguing  of  weight,  our  particulars  lliould  be 
able  to  fuflain  the  fliock  of  our  opponent's  oppofition.  My 
m.ind  is,  fourthly.  That  you  have  told  the  world  that  all  my 
potent  reaibning  refts  upon  thofe  particulars  in  which  I  never 
placed  much  confidence  ;  whereas,  were  I  to  tell  them  where 
the  ftrength  of  the  reafoning  lays,  my  information  would  be, 
that  it  lays,  fiiil:,  in  the  determinate  meaning  of  the  apollle's 
word,  by  which  he  expreifes  the  thing  done  in  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm,  without  uling  the  more  common  word  baptizd, 
as  Heb.  X.  22.  'Having  our  bodies  [leloumenoi)  waflied  with 
pure  water,  &c.'  Laftly,  that  the  ftrenglh  of  my  reafoning 
lay  in  the  fimilitudes  which  Paul  ufes,  when  he  would  illuf- 
trate  what  is  done  to  t]ie  perfons  baptized,  or  what  takes 
place  in  baptifm  ;  that  the  fubjed:s  are  buried  and  railed 
again  in  baptifm  :  this  I  confidered  fufficient  to  make  mani- 
fefl  the  practice  of  the  apoflles.  My  mind  is,  Jifihly,  That 
the  above  reafons  may  excufe  the  circular  appearance  of  my 
argumentation  ;  or  if  they  will  not,  thele  reafons  are  fuffi- 
cient of  themfelves  to  eftablifh  what  I  wifhed,  afide  from 
the  two  middle  particulars,  which  excited  your  obfervations. 
My  mind  is,  fixthly.  That  were  your  Letters,  arguments, 
and  their  author  ufed  in  a  fimilar  manner,  you  would  com- 
plain of  unfairnefs.  My  mind  is,  lajlly.  To  leave  it  with 
our  readers,  to  form  what  judgment  they  pleafe  upon  the 


40  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin»       [Let.  VI. 

conclufivenefs  or  weaknefs  of  our  arguments,  and  with  re- 
ijpeift  to  the  truths  which  we  advocate  or  oppofe. 

Your  fixth  Letter  comes  next,  that  it  may  pafs  in  review : 
in  which  you  bring  forward  what  you  term  unequivocal  and 
indifputable  evidence.  If  it  be  unequivocal  and  indifputable, 
you  need  have  no  apprehenfions  with  relation  to  it,  while  it 
may  pafs  a  candid  review. 

Page  52,  fay  you,  ♦•  It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  word 
ntptot  which  is  fometimes  ufed  as  equivalent  with  bapt'tzo^ 
generally  means  a  .partial  wafhing.  I  have  produced  two 
Cr  three  examples,  in  which  it  is  indifputable  that  the  word 
'louQ  is  ufed  in  the  like  partial  fenfe,  and  in  not  one  is  it  clear 
tliat  it  is  ufed  to  fignify  total  immerfion.  I  will  now  add 
unequivocal  evidence,  to  prove  the  diretfl  contrary  of  your 
affcrtion,  that  the  words  bapt't%o  and  baptifmos  have  not  always 
the  extenfive  fenfe  of  immeifion,  but  fometimes,  at  leaft, 
intend  the  application  of  water  in  a  partial  manner." 

I.  "  In  Luke  xi.  38.  it  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  any  con- 
troverfy,  that  baptl^o  is  ufed  in  a  fenfe  different  from  that  of 
a  total  immerfion  in  water  of  the  fubjed  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plied :— '  And  when  the  Pharifee  faw  it,  he  marvelled  that 
lie  had  not  firR  walhed  befure  dinner." 

ylnf.  Sir,  your  not  knowing  the  traditionary  laws  of  the 
Pharifees,  and  your  inattention  to  the  connexion  and  plain 
import  of  this  paifage  in  Luke,  and  in  that  of  Mark  vii.  is 
the  only  excufe  which  can  be  made  for  you,  whilft  you  very 
incautioufly,  and  with  great  boldnefs,  moft  roundly  contra- 
did:  the  plain  word  of  the  Lord,  in  what  you  fay  on  thefe 
palTages,  from  page  52  to  57. 

The  laws  traditionary  among  the  Pharifees  were,  among 
others,  thefe  two  :  i.  "  They  eat  not  bread,  or  any  common 
meal,  at  any  common  time,  except  they  wafh  their  hands  ;" 
2.  "  When  they  come  from  the  market,  or  from  a  crowded 
aflembly  of  clean  and  unclean  perfons,  they  baptize  them- 
.felves,  or  were  baptized  ;"  that  is,  they  immerfed  or  bathed 
(themfelves  all  over  in  water.  This  fecond  law  carries  its 
own  traditionary  evidence  with  it,  fo  that  it  is  at  once  obvi- 
ous, upon  our  underllanding  the  realbn  of  the  firi^.  The 
reafon  of  the  firft,  or  of  their  wafhing  their  hands,  was,  lefl 
they  had  touched  fome  unclean  thing,  and  fo  their  hands 
might  have  contradcd  fome  deKlement.  Now,  the  reafon 
of  their  immerhng  or  baptizing  themfelves,  when  they  came 
from  the  market,  or  from  the  midft  of  a  promifcuous  multitudey 
is  manifeft ;  for  in  fuch  places,  and  in  fuch  company,  they 
-could  not  tell  on  what  part  tlieir  defilanent  might  be  i  they 


Let.  VI.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin*  41 

muft,  therefore,  ceremonially  cleanfe  themfelves,  or  be  cere- 
monially cleanfed,  all  over  :  they  muft  make  the  outtide 
clean,  according  to  their  traditionary  law. 

This,  Sir,  exa(511y  agrees  with  what  is  related  of  this  mat- 
ter by  both  Mark  and  Luke. 

As  you  have  firfh  taken  the  pafTage  in  Luke,  fo  I  will 
mention  the  circumftances  of  that  firft.  The  palTage  is, 
•When  the  Pharifee  faw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not 
firft  waflied  (or  was  not  firft  immerfed)  before  dinner.* 
The  noticeable  circumftances  are  two  :  i.  Jefus  had  come 
from  a  promifcuous  aflembly,  where  the  people  were  gathered 
thick  together y  verfe  29.  2.  The  reproof  which  our  Lord 
gave  the  Pharifees,  '  Now  do  ye  Pharifees  make  clean  the 
outfide  of  the  cup  and  plattery  plainly  referring  to  the  tradi- 
tionary wafhing,  immerfing,  or  baptizing  their  bodies,  when 
they  had  been  publ'ickly  expofed  to  contrad,  as  they  fuppofed, 
feme  outward  defilement. 

As  to  the  pafTage  in  Mark  vii.  the  matter  appears,  if 
pofilble,  ftill  more  explicit.  In  the  fecond  verfe,  the  Phari- 
fees found  fault,  becaufe  Chrift's  difciples  ate  bread  with 
unwaflien  hands  :  in  the  third,  we  are  told  that  the  Pharifees 
ate  not,  unlefs  they  waftied  their  hands  with  exaftnefs,  or 
rubbing  them  ;  and  in  the  fourth  verfe,  we  have  an  account 
of  their  carrying  their  fuperftition  ftill  farther  ;  for  when 
they  came  from  the  market,  they  ate  not  except  they  baptized 
themfelves,  or  wafhed,  or  bathed  all  over.  This,  Sir,  makes 
the  Scripture  all  eafy  and  natural.  But  this  plain,  fair,  and 
natural  expofition  of  Scripture  very  illy  fuits  you  unfcrip- 
tural  and  unchriftian,  or  antichriftian,  pradtice  of  rantiztng 
for  iaptizing,  or  fprinkling,  or  partial  waftiing,  for  the  gofpel 
ordinance  of  immerfion. 

You  produce  not  one  text  of  ScriptQre  to  prove  your 
affertions,  or  any  other  authority,  fave  Grotius,  "  who  (yoxi 
fay)  is  the  moft  refpecflable  writer  tha.t  ever  appeared  on  our 
fide  of  the  queftion  ;"  and  he  admits  your  expofition  ;  but. 
Sir,  I  do  not,  nor  does  the  v/ord  of  God  admit  it.  Nor 
have  you,  nor  can  you  find  fo  much  as  a  fingle  pa/Tage  In 
the  word  of  God,  where  dapiixo  and  nipto  are  ufed,  but  the 
attending  circumftances  will  fiiow  that  they  mean  different 
things,  or  a  different  application  of  the  fame  thing. 

In  page  ^^^  fpeaking  of  Luke  xi.  38.  you  fay,  "This  paf- 

fage  has  been  often  mentioned  by  Paedobaptift  writers,  but 

ibmehow  the  proper  light  in  which  it  prefents  itfelf  is  ftrange- 

1/  overlooked  bjr  you  and  your  brethren.'*     The  proper 

s 


42  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Atifiin.       [Let.  VI. 

light,  Sir,  we  confider  to  be  Scripture  light ;  this  we  believe 
God  hath  Ihown  us  :  by  this  light  we  dilcover  yoiu-  mifap- 
plic;4tion  of  the  paflage.  You  lubjoin,  "  That  Mr.  Cleave- 
iand  made  ufe  of  it,  we  have  your  authority,  under  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  horn,  him, — "  Your  learned  men  know 
that  the  v.ord  hoptlzo,  Luke  xi.  38.  and  haptifmos,  Mark  vii. 
5'.  are  ufed  to  fignily  the  fame  as  nipto  is ;  that  is,  proper 
wafhing,  or  making  clean  by  the  application  of  water,  in 
cafes  that  do  not  necelfarily  require  dipping,  as  the  mode  of 
wafljing."  You  anfwer  by  flatly  contradiding  the  good 
man's  afTertion :  nay,  you  go  farther,  and  fay,  that  the 
learned  men,  in  no  other  clafs,  know  any  fuch  thing."  You, 
Sir,  are  pleafed  to  add,  "  They  certainly  do  know  it,  as  iai 
as  the  Bible  furnifhes  them  with  information."  Rtpyly.  True, 
but  the  Bible  furniihes  them  with  no  fuch  information.  You 
itill  fubjoin,  "  I  am  forry,  my  dear  Sir,  that  you  have  not 
given  us  a  better  fpccimen  of  your  modefty."  Falfc  mod- 
efty  afide.  Sir,  when  you  or  your  brethren  would,  by  wreft- 
ing  the  Scriptures,  force  from  us  and  from  the  world  the 
precious  ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  even  the  knowledge  of  it. 

We  now  proceed  to  what  you  fet  down  as  undeniable 
evidence.  Your  words  are,  page  57,  "Another  cafe  in 
which  the  word  haptlzo  is  undeniably  ufed  to  convey  an  idea 
.entirely  different  from  that  of  complete  immerfion,  occurs 
1  Cor.  X.  2.  •  And  were  all  baptized  f^ebaptifanto)  untoJMofe^ 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea." 

Here  let  Paul  explain  himfelf,  or  let  the  preceding  verfe 
explain  what  this  means.  The  preceding  verfe  is,  '  More- 
over, brethren,  I.  would  not  that  ye  IhoulJ  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  paiil'd 
through  the  fea;'  then  follows,  vcrle  2,  'And  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Mofes  in  the  jcloud  and  in  the  fea.'  How  does 
this  "undeniably  convey  an  idea  entirely  diiTerent  from  that 
of  complete  immerlion  :"  It  looks  to  me  fomewhat  like  the 
fame  idea.  It  certaiuly  has  the  appearance  of  being  over- 
whelmed, or  completely  cncompalfed.  They  were  all  under 
the  cloud,  they  all  paifed  through  the  lea  ;  they  v>'ere  b.iptized 
^N  the  cloud  and  i\  the  fea.  Tiiis  your  undeniable  evidence 
ngainft  the  idea  of  immerfion,  appears,  upon  tl>e  very  face 
of  it,  to  favour,  ftrongly  to  favour,  the  very  truth  which 
you  brought  it  to  delTroy.  Thus,  Sir,  your  unequivocal 
evidence,  and  your  undeniable  evidence,  and  all  your  evi- 
dence, which  you  bring  againft  immerfion,  as  the  (vily  gof- 
pel  baptifm,  turn  out  like  Balaam,  whom  Balak  hired  to 
curfe  lirael, — they  llefs  it  altogether. 


Let.  VI. J        Letters  to  Rev,  Mr,  Aujl'in,  43 

The  next  witnefs  which  you  prodnce  will  not  be  particu- 
Ip.rly  noticed,  for  you  confeis,  faying,  "  I  do  not  contend 
that  it  !;>  conckifive."  But,  fay  yon,  "The  pafiage  in  Heb. 
ix.  JO.  it  appears  to  me,  is  conchifive."  It  fhall,  then,  be 
fpetially  noticed.  *'  It  determines  (fay  you)  that  bapllz&t 
and  btiptifnws  its  derivative  to  be  generic  terms,  comprehend- 
ing feveral  v,-ays  of  applying  water,  without  fpecifically 
dcfignating  either — *  Which  rtood  only  in  meats,  and  drinks, 
and  divers  vvalhings,  {^diapboro'is  baptifmois)  ^c*  Thefe  bap- 
tifms  were  undoubtedly  all  thofe  applications  of  fluids  which 
were  prefcribed  in  the  Mofaic  law." 

Had  you  read  your  text  three  words  further,  and  taken 
fuiiable  notice  of  thcni,  they  would  have  fpoilcd  your  con- 
clufion.  You  will  permit  me  to  read  the  text,  with  the  three 
additional  words  :  it  is  thus, — '  Which  flood  only  in  meats> 
and  drinks,  and  divers  waihings,  and  carnal  ordinances.''  Now, 
Sir,  the  conclufion  is,  "  Thefe  baptifms  were  undoubtedly 
not  ail  thofe  applications  of  fluids  which  were  prefcribed  in 
the  Mofaic  law;  for  ca.rnal  ordinances  comprife  the  ordi- 
nances of  God  concerning  bloody  facrifices.  Thefe  ordi- 
nances comprife  the  fprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  athes  of 
an  heifer,  &c.  Hence,  Sir,  your  conclufion  is  defedive,  and 
lb  fpoiled. 

Our  nest  inquiry  fhall  be,  What  are  the  wafhings  in  the 
ceremonial  law  ?  Then  we  fhall  inquire  whether  thefe  wafli- 
ings,  compared  with  the  text,  do  not  fpoil  your  conclufion 
from  it  ?  Your  conclufion  is,  That  divers  wafliings  include 
fprinkling,  as  the  fprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  a(hes  of  an 
heifer,  &c. 

The  ceremonial  wafhings,  mentioned  in  the  law,  appear 
to  be  at  moft  but  of  (qvqw  kinds,  and  fome  of  thefe  have  but 
flight  fhades  of  difference.  Thefe  kinds  are,  as  I  fhall  men- 
tion them, — 

1.  <  It  ihall  be  rinfed  in  water,'  Lev.  vi.  28.  This  obvi- 
oully  implies  immerfion. 

2.  '  Aaron  and  his  fons  fhall  wafh  their  feet  at  the  laver/ 
Exod.  xxx.  iS,  19.  This  might  be  performed  by  immerfing- 
their  hands  and  their  feet,  and  it  might  not. 

•X,  ♦  It  fliall  be  fcoured  in  \vater,'  Lev.  vi.  28.  This  fup- 
pcles  immerfion. 

4.  '  He  fliall  wafli  his  clothes  in  water,'  Lev.  xir.  9, 
This  implies  immerfion. 

5.  '  He  fliall  bathe  liimfelf  in  'u^alcr,  he  fliall  wafli  all  his  . 
flelli  in  water,'  Lev.  xv.  ti„  16.     This  taken  literally  is  im- 
merfion» 


44-  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujtin,       [Let.  VI. 

6.  'Aaron  ar.d  liis  fons  thou  (Mofcs)  (halt  bring  unto 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  (halt 
ivafli  them  with  water,'  Exod.  xxix.  4.  This  means,  ac- 
cording to  the  probability,  not  immerfion. 

7.  *  It  mnft  be  jiut  into  water,*  Lev.  xl.  32.  This  is 
manifeftly  immerfion. 

We  fliall  now  inquire  whether  thefe  wafhings,  compared 
t\'ith  the  text,  which  faith  divers  Avafhings,  do  not  fpoil  your 
conclufion.  Your  conclufion  is,  that  divers  wafhings  include 
fprinklings,  all  kinds  of  thefprinklings  of  fluids,  as  the  fprink- 
lings  of  blood,  and  of  the  alhcs  of  an  heifer,  &c. 

Here  it  is  worthy  of  note,  that  in  no  place  is  wafhing 
called  fprinkling,  or  fprinkling  called  vrafhing.  Is  your 
conclufion  fpoiled  ?  It  is  likewife  wortliy  of  your  particular 
obfervation,  that  in  the  Mofaic  law  there  are  feveral  fpecies 
of  ceremonial  wafhings,  which  evidently  imply  immerfion  ; 
fuch  as  rinfing,  fcouring  in  water,  putting  into  water,  and  the 
like.  Now,  Sir,  how  do  you  know  that  Paul,  or  the  Holy 
Ghoft  by  him,  included  in  {diaphorois  bapt'tfmo'is)  divers  wafh- 
ings, any  other  kind  of  waOiing  but  thofe  kinds  which  imply 
immerfion  ?  There  appears  no  intimation,  from  the  words 
ufed,  from  the  connexion,  or  from  common  fenfe,  that  any 
wafliing  which  does  not  imply  immerfion  was  meant.  If  you 
tio  not  knov/  that  any  other  kind  of  wafhing  is  intended,  then 
you  do  not  yet  know  but  my  fentiment  as  to  the  fignification 
oi  haptizo  is  correft  in  every  part,  completely  fo. 

But  as  this  text  is  your  laft  refort,  I  will  juft  obferve  to 
you  and  the  public,  that  even  were  your  ideas  ©f  the  text, 
and  your  conclufion  too,  as  to  its  including  fprinkling,  all 
admitted,  and  fully  granted,  it  would  not  put  my  general 
principle,  that  baptifm  by  immerfion  is  the  only  gofpel  bap- 
tiii.i,  to  any  dancer  ;  for  were  there  a  thoufand  fpecies  or 
kinds  of  baptifm,  there  is,  however,  bat  one  which  is  a  gof- 
pel ordinance,  as  Paul  alFures  us  in  his  cpidle  to  the  Ephc- 
fians  ;  and  this  one  kind  of  baptifm  is  the  kind  which,  as'Paul 
teils  us  in  Romans  and  Colofllans,  and  as  you  by  conle- 
quence  confefs,  has  an  evident  likcnefs  to  burying  and  riung 
again.  ,  Baptifm  by  immerfion  is  the  only  baptifm  which 
hath  this  evident  likenefs.  Hence,  Sir,  whether  you  will  be 
jiulge  yourfeif,  or  leave  it  with  Paul,  it  comes,  when  we  put 
matters  together,  to  the  fame  thing.  Baptilm  by  immerfion 
is  the  only  gofpel  baptifm  :  hence.  Sir,  your  fprinkling  for 
baptifm,  or  your  partial  wafhing  for  baptifm,  or  your  wafh- 
ing  with  rubbing  for  baptifm,  all  turn  out  unfcriptural  and 
©f  man's  invention. 


Let.  VI r.]      Letters  fir  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlln.  45 

Your  pofitlon,  Sir,  is  indeed  a  tryino-  one  to  a  benevolent 
mind.  You  believe  fprinkllng  or  partial  wafhing  to  be  bap* 
tifm.  You  have  labojred  much  r;)  prove  that  there  are 
more  baptifms  than  one,  hoping  in  this  way  to  eftablifh 
Jprmkling  for  baptiim,  as  a  neceiFary  confequence.  Where- 
as, could  you  prove  what  you  have  not,  and  what  we  believe 
you  never  can,  that  there  are  baptifms  which  do  not  imply 
immerfion,  overwhelming,  or  the  like,  flill  it  would  afford 
no  more  evidence,  that  fprinkling  or  any  partial  walhing  is 
gofpel  baptifm,  than  it  proves  that  Mofes'  fprinkling  the 
blbod  of  flain  bealls  upon  the  people,  or  afhes  into  the  air, 
13  gofpel  baptifm  ;  for  Chriftians  have  but  one  gofpel  baptifm^ 
Eph.  iv.  5.  and  if  you  have  more,  they  belong  to  anotheri 
gofpel,  and  are  of  Antichrifl's  invention. 

I  am  yours,  &c. 


LETTER    Vn. 

R  E  V  li  R  E  iV  D     SIR, 

N  the  beginning  of  your  feventh  Letter,  "  you  requelt 
me  to  confider  what  conclui'ion  we  are  naturally  to  drav^r 
from  thofe  places  in  whicii  the  word  bnptlxo  is  ufed  figura- 
tively." This  I  have  already  done  in  a  preceding  Letter, 
and  the  conclufion  which  we  found  to  flow  naturally  from 
it,  was  immerlion ;  for  you  informed  us,  that  Paul  fpake  of 
this  baptifm,  or  defcribed  it  by  the  figurative  language, 
burying,  planting,  and  rifing.  You  alfo  in  this  place  inform 
us,  "  that  there  muft  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  the 
fubjeft  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the  natural  primitive- 
ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubjetS  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a  figure  ;• 
otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe- 
of  it."  The  conclufion  is  hence  perfeiftly  natural,  that  when-. 
hapih:.o  is  ufed  figuratively,  it  means  a  figurative  immerfion, 
that  is,  a  figurative  burying  and  refurredion,  or  immerfion; 
in  fome  element  or  thing,  afide  from  water. 

I  might  have  added  no  more  here,  on  the  baptifm  of  the- 
Holy  Ghoft,  did  I  confider  your  obfervations  fufficiently 
explicit  and  accurate  :  but  as  the  matter  is,  more  muft  be: 
faid. 

Whilft  fpeaking  of  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  as  men*- 
tioned  by  the  prophet  Joel,  ii.  28.  you  exprefs  your  fenti* 
£  3 


46  Lexers  io  Rev,  Mr.  Aujlln.       [Let.  VII. 

ment  in  the  following  manner  :  "  This  prophecy  the  apoftle 
Peter  exprefsly  applies  to  tlie  afFutlon  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
difciples,  on  the  memorable  day  of  Pcntocoft,  when  they 
were  filled  \vith,  not  plunged  in,  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  began 
10  fpcak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  riiern  utter- 
ance. According  to  your  ftrange  treatment  of  tliis  paflage, 
wiiich  furely  is  (fay  you  to  me)  more  like  rant  than  reafon- 
ing,  the  found  and  the  Spirit  wer;"  the  fame  thing,  and  the- 
apoftlcs  were  overwhelmed  with,  or  Immerfed  in,  found.'* 

yitif.  I  faid  not  that  the  apoUles  were  plunged,  over- 
whelmed, or  inmierfed  in  found  :  I  faid  this, — thai  the  houfe; 
was  filled  with  the  found,  wind,  or  Spirit  from  heaven,  and 
that  the  apoftles  were  ovcrv.helmed,  for  all  the  houfe  where 
they  were  fitting  was  filled.  I  left  it  with  you  to  determine 
with  what  the  houfe  was  filled,  whether  with  found,  wind, 
or  Spirit :  but  as  you  have  determined  not  according  to  ray 
liking,  that  it  was  filled  with  found,  I  mud  ftiil  add,  and 
will  do  it  as  explicitly  as  I  can. 

The  operation  wrought  on  the  morning  of  the  memorable 
day  of  Pentecoft,  let  it  be  what  it  m.ay,  was  tlie  baptising 
of  the  dixciples  with  the  Ploly  Gholl:,  as  Chrill  promifed, 
Ads  i.  5. 

Quefl.     What  was  now  done  ? 

uinf.     Three  things  were  done. 

1 .  There  was  a  found  from  heaven  as  of  a  mighty  rufhing 
wind,  (this  is  v^hat  attended  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spitit 
from  heaven,)  and  it  filled  all  the  houfe  where  tiiey  were 
fitting.  What  filled  all  the  houfe  ?  You  may  reply,  Sound 
jfilled  all  tlie  houfe  ;  but  is  your  reply  warranted  from  the 
text,  and  circumllances  attending  ?  Is  it  not  much  more 
confiftent  with  truth,  and  with  the  intent  of  the  text,  to  fay 
that  all  the  houfe  was  filled  with  the  remarkable  prefence 
and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  To  me,  the  lattei  is  the  im- 
portant and  juft  fenfe  of  the  test. 

2.  Another  thing  done  v>as,  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues  as  of  fire,  and  it  fi\t  upon  each  of  them. 

3.  They  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghoft. 

Now>  Sir,  you  will  judge,  or  let  common  fenfe  judge,  what 
part,  or  whether  every  part  of  this  operation  comes  in  to 
make  up  what  is  called  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  To 
me,  it  is  a  plain  cafe  that  the  difciples  were  encompafTed  or 
ovei-whelmed  with  the  divine  glory,  or  with  the  remarkable 
prefence  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  as  well  as  filled  with  it ;  and 
that  this  was  the  baptifm  which  was  predided  and  accom- 
pliited. 


Let.  VIL]      Letters  to  Re-v.  Mr.  Aiijiin.  47 

As  to  tlie  text,  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  *  For  by  one  Sphit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,'  the  import  appears,  from  the 
connexion,  to  be  this, — all  ChriRians,  though  of  very  differ- 
ent gifts  and  graces,  are  all  bound  and  iiiclofed  by  one  Spirit, 
in  one  myftical  body. 

Your  collateral  arguments  mtifl:  now  pafs  a  fhort  re* 
view. 

Neitlier  you  nor  my  readers  would  be  troubled  with  any 
attention  to  thefe.  but  I  wilh  to  meet  and  remove  every 
thing  wljich  prefents  even  a  plaufible  difficulty  in  my  way. 

After  having  eihaulled  your  arguments,  which  pofiefs 
any  apparent  or  fuppofcd  ft^imidabler.efs,  you  obferve,  page 
62,  <'  Otiier  collateral  arguments  againft  the  juilnefs  of  your 
propofition  readily  occur." 

I.  •'  There  being  not  a  word  faid,  in  any  cafe  of  baptifm, 
about  the  perfons  char.ging  their  apparel,  and  going  to  a 
bath  or  river>  for  the  exprefs  and  evident  purpole  of  being 
immsrfcd,'^  ■ 

^nf.  Did  you  never  read,  T.Tat.  iii.  13.  *  Then  ccmeth 
Jefus  frcm  Gai'ike  to  jcrdan  unto  John,  (for  what  ?)  to  be 
baptized  of  him.'  The  plain,  literal,  and  common  import 
of  this  is,  as  we  have  fiinwn  ircrvx  your  Letters,  as  well  as 
from  the  Scriptures,  Jefus  came  from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto 
Jcfhn,  to  be  immerfed  of  him. 

As  for  change  of  apparel,  it  mi^^ht  he  v.'ith  them,  in 
John's  day,  and  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  as  it  has  been 
with  feveral  in  this  place.  When  they  came  from  home 
they  thought  not  of  being  bapiizcd,  but  when  they  gladly 
rece'i'vsd  the  word,  love  conftrained  them  to  obey  their  Lord  ; 
and  there  was  no  change  of  garm.ents  in  the  cafe,  fave  they 
threw  afide  fome  of  their  loofer  garments,  and  having  re- 
ceived the  ordinance,  put  them  on  again. 

I  J.  "  The  improbability  (fay  you)  that  the  water  which 
waf.  made  ufe  offer  baptizing  the  eunuch,  as  it  was  a  water 
to  Vvhich  they  happened  to  be  near,  and  was  not  fought  for 
the  purpofe,  ihcuM  be  in  fufiicient  v]_uantity  for  his  immer- 
Co::." 

Anf.  Philip  had  told  the  eunuch  v/hat  the  ordinance  of 
baptifm  meant,  or  he  vvculd  not  have  wiihed  that  he  might 
be  the  fubjed  of  it.  If  he  knew  what  it  meant,  he  would 
probably  k-n6w  whether  they  faw  a  fufEciency  of  water. 

III.  Your  next  collateral  argument  is,  "  The  difficulty 
of  fuppofing  the  three  thoufand,  mentioned  Acls  ii.  4r.  to 
have  been  immerfed  in  that  part  of  one  day  which  followed 
their  converfion,  efpeciaily  confiderin^  the  probable  want 


48.  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  AujUiu      [Let.  VI L. 

of  bathing  places,  and  their  not  liaving  at  command  fuilable 
change  of  apparel." 

Auf.  I.  At  Jerufaiem  lived  at  this  time  probably  nor  lefs 
than  three  hundred  thouiand,  one-third  of  thefe  at  leaft  were 
obliged  to  bathe  themlelves  fiequently,  on  account  of  fome 
ceremonial  uncleannefs,  and  many  of  the  others  often  ;  hence 
there  was  no  want  of  bathing  places. 

Anf.  2.  There  was  no  want  of  qualified  adminiftrators  ; 
for  their  numbor  appears  to  have  been  about  an  hundred 
and  twenty  ;  compare  Ads  i.  15.  with  ii.  2,  3,  4.  ;  thefe 
could  have  baptized  the  whole  in  lefs  tlian  an  hour. 

Anf.  3.  As  to  their  probably  not  having  at  com.mand 
fuitable  change  of  apparel,  this  would  be  thought  of  little 
confequcnce  by  them,  or  by  any  others,  who  felt  the  folem- 
nity,  the  importance,  and  the  Ipirit  of  the  precious  ordinance 
of  gofpel  baptifni.  Hence,  Sir,  here  is  no  difficulty,  but  to 
fuch  as  have  no  heart  to  follow^  the  example  of  the  Lamb 
of  God. 

IV.  "  The  form  of  exprcffion  (fay  you)  which  Peter 
ufes,  Atfts  X.  47.  ♦  Can  any  xwaw  forbid  water,  that  thefe 
Ihould  not  be  baptized  V  and  the  f;ti5t  of  their  being  baptized 
by  the  command  of  Pcttr  immediately,  and  as  it  would  {Qf:.xn 
on  the  fpot.  This  quellion  of  Peter,  and  this  fad  in  the 
narrative,  viewed  conjunclly,  have  not  the  appearance  of 
going  to  a  water,  for  the  purpofe  of  immerfing  Cornelius, 
his  kinfmen  and  friends  who  were  with  him,  but  of  bap- 
tizing him  by  the  application  of  water  produced  in  feme 
vefleh" 

Anf.  Sir,  had  we  need  of  any  more  arguments  for  im- 
merfion,  this  account  of  Cornelius  would  manifeftly  come 
to  our  help,  and  the  following  particulars  will  fliow  it. 

1.  Cornelius  was  a  Roman  captain  guarding  Judea,  which 
was  at  this  time  one  of  the  provinces  conquered  by  the  Ro- 
mans. 

2.  Cornelius  being  a  Roman  officer  in  a  foreign  country, 
probably  poffeffed  no  land  but  that  on  which  his  houfe  and 
tlie  barracks  for  his  foldiers  ftood. 

3.  Cornelius  being  a  Roman,  not  a  Jew,  he  would  proba- 
bly not  furni{h  himfelf  with  a  bath  or  bathing  place. 

4.  All  who  know  the  jealoufy  of  the  Jews  as  to  their 
liberties,  and  w'hat  animolity  they  have  generally  borne  to- 
wards their  conquerors,  may  fee  at  once  they  would  not  be 
very  ready  to  grant  favours  to  a  Gentile  officer,  whofe  office 
and  prefence  put  them  in  conftaut  remembrance  of  their 
fubjedtion. 


Let.  VII.]      Letiers  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aiijlin,  49 

5.  The  Jews  probably  owned  all  the  bathing  places  which 
were  for  miles  round,  and  Cornelius  had  no  liberty  to  oc- 
cupy tlicm  without  their  confent. 

Under  thefe  circumllances,  we  may  conclude,  and  very 
rationally  too,  that  Peter  would  addrels  the  Jews  who  came 
from  Joppa  with  -im,  and  others  who  might  poflibly  be 
preient,  and  fay  to  them,  with  relation  to  his  brethren,  who 
v/ere  owners  of  the  bathing  places  round  about  Cornelius's 
habitation,  Who  of  us  Jews,  who  believe  in  God  and  in  his 
Son  Jefus,  can  be  fo  tenacious  of  our  civil  privileges,  and 
hear  fo  much  ill  will  to  the  Romans,  as  to  forbid  water,  or 
the  ufe  of  feme  batliing  place,  that  thefe  finners  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  have  now  received  the  Holy  Ghoft  as  well  as  we, 
ihould  not  be  permitted  to  receive  the  gofpel  ordinance  of 
baptifm  ?  This  appears  all  eafy  and  natural :  but  to  fup- 
pofe  that  Peter  meant,  Can  any  man  forbid  a  bafon  of 
water  to  be  brought  in,  that  thefe  fhould  not  be  baptizecj, 
would  be  totally  and  m.anifeftly  unnatural,  and  inconfiftent 
■with  the  attending  circumftances.  Peter  was  now  in  Cor- 
nelius's houfe :  Cornelius  had  both  fervants  and  foldiers  at 
a  moment's  command,  and  it  would  perhaps  have  been  the 
laft  thing  that  any  one  of  the  company  would  have  thought 
of,  to  have  forbidden  a  bowl  of  water  to  be  brought  by  one 
cf  the  fervants,  at  the  command  of  Cornelius.  You,  Sir, 
and  the  leader  will  jadc^e  which  fide,  yours  or  the  Baptift's, 
is  favoured  by  this  collateral  argument  of  yours. 

V.  Say  you,  "  The  flrong  probability,  notwithftanding 
your  fiippofitions,  that  the  jailer  and  his  houfe  were  not 
baptized  by  immerfion." 

For  anfwer,  the  reader  is  referred  to  my  fixth  Sermon, 
pnges  93,  94,  firft  eViition  ;  however,  I  will  reply  to  a  quef- 
tinn  which  you  put  under  this  argument.  "  If  here  was 
iinmerfion,  (fay  you)  why  do  we  not  hear  fom.ething  about 
a  r'l'-cer  or  bathing  place,  going  out  to  it,  returning,  &c.  ? 
Avf.  We  do  hear  or  read  in  the  fame  chapter,  and  with 
le.'peft  to  the  fam.e  city  v.here  the  jailer  lived,  that  there  was 
a  river  running  through  the  city,  or  by  it.  It  was  by  the 
fide  of  tliis,  where  Paul  and  Silas  fpake  unto  the  women, 
vhere  pr.-iyer  was  wont  to  be  made.  We  alio  read  of  the 
jailer  and  the  apoftles  coming  iii,  of  confequence  they  rnuft 
have  gone  out. 

VI.  Say  you,  page  65,  "  I  will  jufl  f.ibjoin,  for  I  confult 
brevity  as  much  as  pofilble.  the  cafe  of  Paul,  Ads  ix.  18,  19. 
*  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been 
fcales ;  and  he  received  fight  forthwith,  and  aroie,  and  was 
baptized." 


50  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.      [Let.  VTI. 

j^nf.  Why,  Sir,  did  yon  not  mention  Adls  xxii.  i6.  "where 
the  fame  hiftory  of  Paul  is  rel;Ued  in  the  following  words — 
*  Arifo,  and  be  baptized,  and  ivq/b  nnuay  thy  fms,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord'  ?  The  realbn  is  fniSciently  plain  :  in 
this  relation  of  the  fame  traniaiflion,  the  manner  in  which 
water  was  to  be  applied  to  Paul,  in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
was  mentioned  by  implication.  He  was  to  be  b.ithed  or 
immerfed  in  water,  and  thus,  by  a  figure,  he  was  to  walii 
away  his  fins,  or  to  have  them  apparently  or  figuratively 
wafhed  away. 

Plaving  faid  what  you  pleafed,  and  pr'obably  every  thing 
which  you  thought  plaufible,  at  leall  the  things  which  you 
judged  moft  fo,  then  you  obferve,  as  a  kind  of  conclufion, 
thus, — "  I  fuggeft  thefe  things  curforily,  not  pretending  that 
they  furnilh  demonftration,  that  the  uniform  import  of  the 
term  baptize,  as  ufed  in  the  Scriptures,  is  a  partial  walliing 
fhort  of  immerfion ;  for  that  is  not  a  point  I  am  aiming  to 
eftablifh,  but  as  furniihing  d'lreB  proof  7\.v;a\W\\.  your  hypothe- 
fis,  that  the  word  figniries  to  immerfe,  and  chat  only.  If 
there  are  exceptions,  and  we  fee  that  there  is  abundant  evi- 
dence that  there  are,  your  main  propofition  relative  to  bap- 
tifm falls,  and  with  it  muft  fall,  for  this  reafon,  as  well  as 
for  the  other  previoufly  given,  your  whole  fuperftrudure  of 
clofe  communion." 

Anf,  I  have.  Sir,  two  obje(5tions  againd  this  your  con- 
clufion. One  is,  You  tell  us  about  dircH proof  againft  my 
hypothefis,  when  not  one  patfage  which  you  have  brouglit, 
nor  all  of  them  put  together,  where  hapti%Q  is  ufed,  furnifh, 
ftridtly  fpeaking,  lO  much  as  one  plaufible  argument  againft 
my  hypothefis.  When  you  take  the  derivative  of  baptlxo 
there  is  Ibmething  plaufible,  but  it  furniTnes  no  proof,  dircifl 
or  indired,  againft  it.  The  moll  which  you  can  fay  witl: 
fafecy  is,  that  wlien  the  apoftlc  fpeaks  of  diaphomu  bapsifmois., 
divers  waitings,  he  might  mean,  or  you  believe  he  meant  to 
include  more  kinds  of  wafiiings  than  the  multitude  of  rinf- 
ings,  fcourings  in  water,  and  puttings  into  water,  &c.  which 
were  enjoined  in  the  ceremonial  law.  You  have  no  proof, 
or  at  lead  you  have  given  us  none,  that  he  intended  any 
other  kinds  of  wafiiings,  which  did  not  imply  immerfion. 
Eycn  if  you  could  do  what  you  have  not  done,  produce 
proof  that  bapttjmuis  did  include  fome  kinds  of  wafiiings 
which  were  not  entire  immerfion,  fiill  this  would  be  no 
direct  proof  that  bapflzo  v/as  ever  ufed  to  import  any  thing 
Ihort  of  entire  immerfion.  Your  proof,  therefore,  fails  you 
utterly  ;  hence  my  hypothefis  as  yet  Hands  iccurely. 


Let.  VII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujiin.  51 

My  other  objeftion  is,  You  tell  us  that  there  is  abnndance 
of  evidence  that  there  are  exceptions,  i.  e.  that  hapt'izo  does 
not  always  mean  immerfion,  or  the  like.  We  have  received 
all  your  Letters,  and  find  no  evidence.  You  have  produced 
feveral  pretended  witnefles,  but  they  agree  not  together,  nor 
does  any  one  of  them  fpeak  to  the  point  in  hand  ;  and  even 
when  we  fummed  up  your  own  evidence,  it  was,  that  irnmer- 
fion  was  the  only  gofpel  baptifm  which  )  ou  could  find  ; 
hence  my  main  propofition  ftands,  and  with  it  muj}  Jland  my 
ivhole  fuperJlruBure  of  clofe  communion. 

In  page  66,  you  mention  the  appeals  which  have  been 
made  on  both  fides,  to  the  learned  faihcrs  and  critics ;  and 
then,  in  page  67,  make  this  excellent  declaration  and  appeal, 
"  We  refuie.  Sir,  (fay  you)  to  be  bound  by  human  tefti- 
mony,  in  an  eflential  article  of  Chriftian  practice  :  we  appeal  ■ 
to  the  oracles  of  truth.''*  This  is  juft  the  relblution  and  point 
to  which  the  BaptiRs  wifh  to  bring  your  denomination.  If 
you  might  be  inftrumental  of  purluading  them  to  refufe 
human  tellimony,  as  the  bafis  of  any  eilcniial  article  in  the 
Chriftian  faith,  and  to  take  the  oracles  of  truth,  as  being  a 
fufficient  guide  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  and  to  be- 
lieve that  the  man  of  God,  fo  far  as  he  undei  ftands  them,  is 
perfc(fi:,  throughly  furniflied  unto  all  good  works,  you 
would  do  an  efiential  fervice  to  the  caufe  of  truth,  and  .your 
praife  would  be  in  all  the  churches.  Could  this  be  effecled, 
we  might  hope  for  a  fpeedy  union  betv/een  the  two  denomi- 
nations. Could  we  all  agree  to  walk  by  one  rule,  we  might 
expedt  to  be  foon  in  one  path. 

The  next  thi.ig  which  in  your  Letters  appears  worthy  of 
particular  attention,  is  your  iblemn  addiefs  to  me,  in  page 
70,  a  part  of  which  is  in  the  words  following, — "  I  entreat 
you  to  come  to  a  folemn  paufe,  and  with  your  eye  upon  the 
judgment  day,  inquire  whether  you  have-  authority  to  ex- 
clude all  Psdobaptills  from  a  vifible  ftanding  in  Chrift's 
kingdom,  and  from  the  communion  of  faints  in  an  ordinance 
which  was  given  to  them  as  a  moil:  valusble  becjueft  of  their 
Redeemer,  merely  becaufe  they  have  not  been  baptized  in 
the  manner  of  immerfion  ?'* 
My  reply  to  you.  Sir,  is, 

I.  It  was  a  folemn  belief  in  a  judgment  to  come,  and  that 
the  light  of  that  day  would  deted  all  error,  and  difcover  the 
truth,  and  bring  me  to  acknowledge  it,  which  greatly  ful>- 
dued  the  rifings  of  my  carnal  heart  againfl  the  clofe  com- 
munion Baptilts.  After  I  had  thought  much  of  the  partic- 
ular fentlments  of  the  Baptiils,  and  load  had  no  fniall  di£- 


5a  Letters  tQ  Rev.  Mr,  Anjlln,      [Let.  VII. 

culty  as  to  my  own  pra^^ice,  their  clofe  communion  fchcme, 
as  I  then  confidered  it,  appeared  to  me  fo  erroneous,  tliat  I 
was  upon  the  point  of  concluding  them  to  be  wrong  through- 
out, and  of  fetthn^q;  down  upon  my  old  practice  ;  but,  Sir,  a 
folemn  belief  in  a  judgment  to  come,  calmed  my  oppofitiou ; 
and  a  folemn  belief  that  truth  would  then  appear,  and  that 
if  the  Baptiils  were  in  die  truth,  they  would  tlien  appear  fo, 
prevailed  upon  me  to  give  their  diftinguifhing  fentiments 
one  folemn  hearing  more.  I  may  fay,  it  was  the  judgment 
day  as  a  mean,  which  made  me  a  Baptitt.  I  have  daily  a 
folemn  view,  or  folemn  thoughts,  on  death,  judgment,  and 
eteiijiity  ;  and  with  reference  to  thefe,  I  fometimes  defire  to 
do  with  my  might  v/hat  my  hands  find  to  do,  for  God 
and  the  church. 

2.  My  reply  is,  that  I  have  no  authority  to  exclude  you 
from  any  place  where  Chrift  hath  put  you,  nor  from  any 
ordinance  which  he  hath  bequeathed  to  you  :  but  I  have  no 
belief  of  fprinkling,  nor  of  any  thing  elfe  fhort  of  immerfion, 
being  gofpel  baptifm.  I  have  no  belief  of  a  perfon's  be- 
longing to  Chrilt's  viiible  kingdom,  before  he  is  baptized. 
I  have  no  belief  of  Chrift's  having  bequeathed  the  ordinance 
of  the  fupper  to  any,  till  they  belong  to  his  vifible  kingdom  ; 
confequently,  I  have  no  belief  of  your  having  any  gofpel 
right  to  partake  of  that  ordinance  ;  hence,  my  fettled  belief 
is,  that  I  have  no  liberty  to  encourage  you  to  come,  till  you 
repent  of  your  perveruon  of  the  firfl,  gofpel  ordinance,  and  be 
baptized. 

Say  you  again,  confider,  **  I  befeech  you,  how  your  doc- 
trine belittles  the  glorious  and  growing  kingdom  of  tlie 
Meffiah,  &c.  ;  how  it  obhges  you  to  go  abroad  of  the  molt 
affedling  fads,  I  mean  the  wonderful  fuccefs  which  has  at- 
tended the  labours  of  thoufands  of  Pasdobaptill  miniiiers  " 

But,  my  dear  Sir,  you  have  forgotten  the  appeal  v.'hich 
you  have  but  juft  made  to  the  oracles  of  truth.  On  the  lad 
page  this  appeal  was  made,  and  now  you  are  appealing  to 
good  Posdobaptifl  miniilers,  to  convidl  me  of  an  error.  I 
fliall  no  more  confent  to  fuch  an  appeal.  To  the  oracles  of 
truth  thou  haft  appealed,  and  to  them  thou  mufl  go,  and  by 
them  thou  and  thy  works  muft  be  judged.  By  them  con- 
viift  either  me  or  my  dodlrines,  and  I  am  filent.  But  at  no 
other  tribunal  do  I  for  the  prefent  confent  to  meet  you,  or 
to  be  tried  myfelf. 

Wiihing  that  we  may  both  of  us  be  prepared  to  meet  the 
God  of  truth,  in  Him  who  is  the  /r«//;, 

I  am,  &c. 


Let.  VIII.]       Letters  to  Rev,  Mr,  Aufiin,  53 


LETTER    VIIL 

REVEREND    SIR, 

I   NOW  haften  to  a  review  of  your  examination  of  my 
Sermon  on  the  fubjedls  of  baptifm. 

In  page  72,  you  complain  of  my  ftatement  of  the  quef- 
<ion,  which  relates  to  the  command  to  difciple  all  nations. 
I  ftated  it  thus  :  The  important  queRion  to  be  decided  is 
juft  this — If  I  difciple  any  of  you  who  are  parevts,  do  I,  as  a 
necejfary  confequence,  difciple  all  your  children  and  hcufeholds  ? 

Yon  obje(ft — "  No,  Sir,  this  is  not  juft  the  queftion  ;  the 
qtieftion  refceds  the  objed  of  this  act  of  difcipling.  Whom 
are  you  to  difciple  ?  the  text  fays,  All  nations."  Very  well ; 
and  do  not  nations  confift  of  parents,  with  their  children  and 
houfeholds  ?  In  the  next  page  you  fay,  "  The  capability  of 
the  objetfls  muft  certainly  be  fuppofed  ;  but  there  can  be  no 
capability  in  the  infant  part  of  a  nation,  but  by  virtue  of 
their  relation  to  tlieir  parents."  Very  well  agrJn  ;  this  comes 
to  juft  what  I  faid — If  your  fcheme  be  jull,  we  difciple  the 
children  by  difcipling  the  parents. 

Before  we  proceed  any  further,  we  will  give  our  Saviour'* 
definition  of  a  difciple,  Luke  xiv.  33.  «Whofoever  he  be  of 
you  chat  forfakeih  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my 
difciple.'  Now,  Sir,  the  important  queftion  is  juft  this— 
If  through  rriy  inftrumentallty  a  parent  forfakes  all  that  he 
hath,  and  fo  becomes  a  di'ciple,  do  the  infant  children  and 
houfehold  become  difciples  of  courfe  ?  This  is  your  fcheme, 
Sir,  but  it  is  not  mine  nor  the  gofpel's. 

In  connexion,  you  afk,  "  Is  it  impoffible  for  God  to  per- 
ieift  praife  from  the  mouth  of  babes  and  fucklings,  and  that 
of  fuch,  in  part,  his  kingdom  oi grace  fiiould  confift  ?"  From 
what  motive  you  aiked  this  queftion,  which,  from  its  con« 
nexion,  tends  to  deceive  the  inattentive,  I  know  not,  but  to 
it  I  reply — You  have  changed  the  fubjedc  in  debate  ;  we 
are  not  fpeaking  of  tlie  kingdom  of  grace,  but  of  Chrift's 
vifible  kingdom  ;  bef  des>  the  babes  and  fucklings  which  are 
fpoken  of  in  the  gofpel,  and  of  which  Chrift's  vifible  king- 
dom does  no  doubt  in  part  confift,  are  fuch  as  cried  in  the 
temple,  faying,  Hofanna  to  the  Son  of  David. 

You  complain  again,,  b^caufe  I  fubllituted  difciple  £ov  teach, 
and  fo  make  the  commaiid  of  our  Lord  to  be,  Go  and  dif- 
ciple all  nations  ;  yet  in  the  next  page-  you  fay,  ♦•  The  fub- 
ftitution  of  the  term  difciple,  is  much  more  favourable  t* 

F 


5.4-  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auftin.      [Let.  VIII. 

the  caiife  of  the  Pcedobaptifts  than  to  yours."  Why  fo  ? 
Becaufe,  as  you  implicitly  tell  us  in  the  preceding  fentence, 
and  imply  in  this,  that  children  cannot  be  taught  by  virtue 
of  their  relation  to  their  parents,  but  that  they  may  be  dif- 
cipled  by  virtue  of  this  relation.  But,  Sir,  you  quite  forget 
your  appeal  to  the  oracles  of  truth,  or  determine  not  to  abide 
their  decifion,  or  you  could  never  fuppofe  that  an  infont,  or 
that  a  child  of  any  age,  could,  by  virtue  of  his  relation  to 
his  parents,  forfake  all  that  he  hath,  and  fo  become  a  difci- 
ple  of  Chrift.  "But  (in  the  clofe  you  fay)  allow,  in  this 
lefpecl  alfo,  all  that  you  wifli,  that  the  command  extends  to 
adults  only,  what  will  follow  ?  Vv^ill  it  follow  that  this  paf- 
fage  interdidls  infant  baptifm  ?  By  no  means,"  fay  you.  I 
anfwer,  By  all  means,  it  does  interdict  all  others  ;  for  the 
text.  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  is  the  general  orders,  and  it  is  the 
particular  orders,  which  Jefus  Chrilt  hath  given,  relative  to 
the  fubjeds  of  baptifm^  and  he  hath  given  us  no  different 
orders.  When  he  hath  pointed  out,  and  particularly  defig- 
nated,  who  are  to  be  admitted  to  his  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
he  interdifts  all  others,  and  none  elfe  have  a  right  to  come  ; 
nor  have  his  minifters  any  authority  to  baptize  any  others; 
and  it  is  grofs  prelumption,  if  they  knowingly  adminifter  to 
perfons  of  a  different  defcription. 

You  next  examine  three  Ihort  arguments  of  mine,  againft 
infant  baptifm. 

1.  John  made  his  hearers  difciples,  before  he  baptized 
them. 

2.  Chrift's  difciples  baptized  none,  but  fuch  as  were  made 
difciples  firft,  according  to  John  iv.  i,  2. 

3.  Chrift,  in  my  text,  gives  no  liberty  to  baptize  any,  but 
fuch  as  are  firft  difciplcd. 

You  affent  to  each  of  thefe  arguments,  as  being  well 
founded ;  nay,  if  poffible,  you  do  more  :  you  inform  us  that 
the  cafe  of  infant  baptifm  was  not  mentioned  by  John,  by 
Jefus  Chrift,  or  by  his  difciples.  Your  words  are,  "  There 
was  good  reafon  why,  when  baptil'm  was  introduced,  as 
admlniftered  to  the  Jews,  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  men- 
tioned :  it  is  doubtful  whether  they  were  baptized  ;  I  am 
inclined  to  think  they  were  not."  Now,  Sir,  if  there  were 
good  reafon  why,  when  baptifm  was  introduced,  as  ad- 
ininiftered  to  the  Jews,  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  men- 
tioned, then  it  was  not  ;  if  it  were  not  mentioned  then, 
among  the  Jews,  it  was  not  mentioned  at  all  by  Jefus 
Chrift,  for  he  was  no  wlvere  elfe.  If  it  were  not  mentioned 
by  Chrift,  it  is  not  in  the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift ;  for  none 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aitjlin,  $^ 

had  authority  to  add  any  thing  but  what  he  had  command- 
ed. This  being  the  cafe,  furely  you  have  not  expreiFed 
yourfelf  too  ftrongly,  where  you  fay,  "  It  is  doubtful  whetlier 
they  (infants)  were  baptized  ;  I  am  inclined  to  think  they 
were  not."  But  if  this  be  the  truth,  that  neither  John,  nor 
Jefus  Chriil,  the  Chriiliian  Lawgiver,  nor  his  difciples,  fo 
much  as  mentioned  infant  baptifm,  1  wilh  to  know  by  v.-hat 
authority  you  and  your  brv^thren  praiflife  it  ?  and  M'ho  gave 
you  this  authority  ?  From  Chriil  you  received  it  not  ;  for 
you  confefs  that  he  mentioned  it  not  in  his  days,  or  you  fay, 
"  there  was  good  reafon  why  the  cafe  of  infants  was  not  then 
mentioned."  You  alfo  confefs,  his  difciples  did  not  mention 
it  in  the  days  of  Chriil,  nor  for  I  know  not  how  long  after - 
,  wards.  The  apoftles  have,  indeed,  no  where  faid  a  word  of 
infant  baptifm.  13y  what  authority  then  do  you  teach  in- 
fant baptifm,  and  prefume  to  pracflife  it  ?  and  who  gave  you 
this  authority  ?  Have  you  any  authority,  fave  from  the  popes 
of  Rome,  from  the  mother  of  harlots,  the  mvflcry  of  iniqui- 
ty, comprifmg  the  kings  of  the  earth,  Avho  are  at  war  with, 
tlic  L:mib  j* 

Wi[hing  you  wifdcm  and  grace  enough  to  rcr.fiunce  tho 
traditions  of  popes  and  councils,  and  to  prauiie  by  gof^rell 
ruics^ 

I  am,  &c..  • 


LETTER   IX. 


REVEREND    SIR, 

YOUR  Letter  upon  the  covenant  of  circumcillori,  de- 
mands  our  next  attention.  You  manifeft  a  very  ftrong 
attachment'-to  this  covenant  :  you  confider  it  to  be  the  in- 
furmountable  obRacle  in  our  way,  and  the  hinge  on  which 
hangs  the  controverfy  between  us ;  yes,  you  fet  it  down  to 
be  the  rock  on  which  are  all  our  hopes.  You  tell  us,  "  if 
we  do  not  keep  it,  w-e  are  jnevhably  lojl  frrever." 

It  might  be  thought  by  fome  to  be  a  fufHcient  anfwer,  to 
afk.  What  then  hath  become  of  Enoch,  Methufelah,  Noah, 
and  many  others,  who  lived  and  died  long  before  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcifion  had  exiftence  ?  But,  Sir,  as  your  mind 
is  highly  intent  on  this  covenant,  and  as  I  indeed  confider  it 
an  important  article,  I  will  fet  it  beibre  you  witli  as  much, 
perfpicuity  as  I  can. 


1^6  Letters  to  Rgv.  Mr,  Aujfin,       [Let.  IX. 

To  clear  the  way  to  introduce  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  I  will  juft  mention  the  covenant  which  includes  the 
promifes  which  were  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  feed  f 
'  not  to  feeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  feed» 
which  is  Chrift,*  Gal.  iii.  i6.  This  covenant  was  before 
time  ;  but  it  was  confirmed  cf  God  in  Chrift,  (to  Abraham) 
twenty  years  before  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  mad« 
or  mentioned,  verfe  17.  This  covenant,  which  included  the 
promifes  of  grace,  was  mentioned  or  intimated,  Gen.  xii.  3. 
The  fame  covenant,  or  fome  of  the  promifes  contained  in  it, 
or  flowing  from  it,  are  again  mentioaed,  Gen.  xii.  7.  xv.  8. 
and  xvii.  i — 8.  and  in  many  other  places.  With  regard  to 
this  covenant,  there  is  no  profeffed  difficulty  between  your 
denomination  and  the  BaptiRs,  fave  in  one  pomt,  whether 
this  covenant  and  that  of  circumcifion  be  the  fame. 

You  believe  this  covenant  tonUiins  all  the  promifes  of 
l^race,  and  that  this  covenant  and  that  of  circumcifion  are 
one  and  the  fame  covenant. 

We  believe  this  covenant  contains  Chrift:,  and  as  all  the 
promifes  of  grace  are  in  Chrift,  fo  all  the  promifes  are  con- 
tained in  this  covenant ;  and  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion is  a  covenant  diftindl  from  this,  and  is  but  a  token  of 
this.  We  believe  the  firft  covenant,  which,  for  the  fake  of 
diftin<5lion,  is  called  the  covenant  of  grace,  comprifes  this 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  fo  far  as  circumcifion  was  of 
grace ;  but  we  do  not  believe  that  the  covenant  of  grace 
was  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ;  we  believe  the  latter 
covenant  to  be  a  token  of  the  former,  and  yet  fo  diftinft  from 
it  as  to  be  two  diftinft  covenants.  Our  inquiry  ihall  be,. 
Do  not  the  Scriptures  fay  the  fame  things  ? 

Before  I  make  the  propofed  inquiry  I  have  a  few  things. 
10  obferve. 

1.  The  covenant  of  grace  is  what  God  agrees,  if  I  may 
lb  fay,  or  covenants,  or  promifes  to  do  for  Abraham,  his 
pofterity,  and  for  the  family  of  mankind  ;  or  that  which 
God  hath  promifed  to  do  for  the  human  family,  is  the  vifi- 
ble  part  of  the  covenant  cf  grace,  as  it  refpedls  the  good  of 
man. 

2.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  what  God  required 
Abraham  to  agree  to  and  to  pradife. 

3  The  firft  covenant  was  repeatedly  mentioned,  and  was 
confirmed  by  the  promife  of  God,  before  the  fecond  was 
once  brought  to  view. 

4  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  appears  to  be  no  more 
the  covenant  of  grace,  in  which  are  tlie  promifei,  than  my 


Let.  IX.3       Letters  to  Rev*  Mr.  Aujiin,  sy 

believing  in  and  approving  of  the  mediatorial  righteoufnefs 
of  Jefus  Chrill,  is  that  all-fufficient  righteoufnefs.  God  re- 
quired Abraham  and  his  natural  feed  to  obferve  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcifion ;  he  requires  me  and  all  others  to  believe. 
The  foul  who  was  not  circumcifed,  had  brpken  the  covenant ; 
fo  the  unbeliever  is  condemned  already,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  John 
iii.  18. 

5.  By  confounding  thefe  two  covenants  together,  you 
confound  yourfelf,  and  ccnfufe  your  readers  and  hearers, 
and  obtain  fome  unreafonable  plaufibility  in  favour  of  yjuT 
unfcilptural  notions  of  baptizing  children. 

6.  If  thefe  covenants  were  one,  llill  they  neither  of  them 
fay  a  word  about  the  baptifm  of  children,  or  of  Chriftian 
baptifm  for  any  perfon ;  nor  are  they  ever  mentioned  by 
Chrift,  by  his  difciples,  or  by  any  others,  as  giving  any  right 
to  baptifm,  unlefs  it  were  by  the  Pharifees  and  Sad  Jucees 
wh-o  came  to  John's  baptifm. 

7.  The  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  but  a  token  of  the 
covenant  between  God  and  Abraham  ;  or  a  token  of  God's 
promifes  being  to  Abraham  for  good,  and  a  feal  of  Abra- 
ham's faithfulnefs. 

Now  our  inquiry  fliall  be^ — Say  not  the  Scriptures  the  iai7'e 
things  ? 

In  the  firO;  place,  the  Scriptures  tell  us,  that  God  proti- 
ifcd  to  Abraham,  that  in  his  feed  all  the  families  of  the  eardi 
ihould  be  bleifed.  Gen.  xii.  3.  The  Scriptures  alfo  affure 
us,  that  God  promifed  to  Abraham,  that  his  feed  fhould 
inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  that  God  would  make  him 
the  father  of  many  nations,  Gen.  xii.  7.  xv.  18.  xvii.  i — 8. 
Thefe  are  promifes  contained  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  or 
thefe  are  tJie  covenant  of  grace,  as  manifefled  to  Abraham ; 
or  they  are  promifes  founded  upon,  or  flowing  from,  that 
covenant. 

Jn  the  next  place,  the  Scriptures  fliy.  Gen.  xvii.  10,  11. 
'  '/"a/x  is  tny  covenant  'rjoh'tch  ye  Jball  keep  h;tiveen  me  and  you,  and 
th)'  feed  after  thee  ;  E'very  man-ch}Id  among  you  JhaU  be  circum- 
cifed. And  ye  Jliqll  circumcife  the  jlcjli  of  your  for ejhin  ;  and  if 
Jhall  he  a  token  of  the  covenant  bet^Mixt  me  and  you.'  Hence,  if 
you  can  underftand  two  plain  verfes  in  the  Bible,  you  may 
underftand  what  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  is.  In  thefe 
two  verfes  we  have  the  fame  thing  mentioned  four  times,  in 
different  v/ords :  firft,  God  fays.  This  is  my  covenant ;  fec- 
ondly,  he  tells  what  it  is.  Every  man-child  among  you  fhall 
be  circumcifsd ;  thirdly,  God  informs  us  how  this  co-icnarj  h 

F2 


^S  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlin.       [Let.  IX. 

to  be  kept,  Ye  rtiall  circumdfe  t'-e  flefh  of  your  foreflcin  ; 
fourtJily,  God  informs  us  what  is  the  end  or  ufe  of  this  co\  - 
enant  of  circumcilion,  It  ftiall  be  a  loLen  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  Him  and  Abraham. 

Hvre  the  covenant  of  circumciPiOn  equals  every  man-child 
being  circumcifed  ;  every  man-child  being  circumcifed  equals 
tlie  circumcifing  the  flelh  of  their  forefkin  ;  the  circumcifmg 
the  flefh  of  their  foreiliin  equals  the  token  of  tlie  covenant 
betwixt  God  and  Abraham;  hence,  the  token  of  the  cove- 
nant betwixt  God  and  Abraham  equals  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  ;  for  it  is  a  well  known  axiom,  That  things 
that  are  equal  to  the  fame  are  equal  to  one  another :  lience. 
Sir,  you  muft  fay,  that  a  token  of  a  covenant  is  the  covenant 
itfelf,  which  is  abfurd,  or  that  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  i.i 
a  covenant  in  diftinclion  from  the  covenant  of  grace,  or  in 
diftinction  from  that  covenant  which  contains  the  promifes. 

Befides,  if  you  will  ftill  hold  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion- and  that  of  grace  are  the  fame  thing,  you  fall  into 
another  abfurdity,  which  ought  to  alarm  ycu,  and  it  will 
'confound  your  fentiment.  The  abfurdity  is  this, — If  the 
covenant  of  grace,  which  contains  the  prcmife  of  the  Mef- 
fiah,  and  die  covenant  of  circumcifion,  be  one  and  the  fume 
thing,  then  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  contains  the  prom- 
ife  of  the  Meffiah,  may  be  broken,  and  hatli  been  thoufands 
of  times  ;  for  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  broken  every 
time  and  as  often  as  any  male  child  among  the  Jews  was 
not  circumcifed,  Gen.  xvii.  14.  Thus  abfurd  are  your  no- 
tions of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  ;  and  by  thefe  abfurd 
notions,  you  wotild  lead  m.en  blindfold  into  the  antichiiftian 
notion  of  intuit  baptifm :  fen-,  fay  as  mtieh  a5  you  pleafe, 
there  is  not  one  of  your  hearers  or  readers,  who  can  fee  that 
infant  baptifm,  as  a  gofp&l  duty,  is  found  in  the  Jev\itii  rita 
of  circumcifion.  By  fuch  daric  notions  you  may  lead  the 
blind  blindfold,  but  you  can  never  in  this  way  iuftruct  tiie 
ignorant,  or  reclaim  thofe  wlio  wander  out  of  the  way. 
Chrrft  hath  no  where  taught  you  to  teach  thus,  and  you 
ought  to  be  careful  how  you  tlius  teach  for  the  future. 

You  probably  may  fuppofe  that  you  have  an  cbjec'lion  of 
feme  magnitude,  againft  my  idea  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion, becaufe  it  is  faid.  Gen.  xvii.  13.  *  My  covenant  fhall 
be  in  your  jifjh  for  an  everlajling  covenant,'  Anf.  This  ever- 
lajl'tng  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  to  be  of  the  fame  dura- 
tion with  tlie  everlqjllng  pojfejfion  wliich  the  Lord  promifed  to 
give  the  fscd  of  Abraham,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  verfe  8  : 
neither  of  thep  v.as  intended  to  continue  wilhout  end. 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rei/.  Mr.  Aujiin.  59 

Your  denomination  are  often,  if  not  continually,  telling 
the  world  about  circuincifion  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant. 
You  would  much  oblige  us,  would  you  inforn;  us  by  what 
authority  you  employ  tiiis  blind  to  prevent  the  ignorant  from 
feeing. 

We  read,  Rom.  iv.  1 1.  of  circumcifion  being  a  pa!  of  the 
r'tghttoufnefs  oi  Ahrabarns  faith,  but  this  gives  you  no  author- 
i-ty  to  impofe  upon  your  hearers  the  falfe  and  mifchievous 
jdea  of  its  being  a  feal  of  tl:e  covenant,  and  fo  they  muft 
Kave  their  children  Iprinkled,  to  put  them  into  the  covenant. 
A  more  wicked  idea  the  man  of  fm  probably  never  advanced 
to  a  credulous  world. 

By  this  lime  you  may  conclude  that  either  you  or  I  know 
Tiothinfj  about  the  covenant  of  circumcilion.  That  the 
readers  may  judge  tor  themfeives  and  know  where  the 
truth  lies,  I  will  fet  down,  in  the  margin,  the  texts  which 
fpeak  of  circumcilion,  from  Geneus  to  Revelation.* 

You  fay>  page  84,  fpeaking  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  "  If 
circumcifion  was  a  feal  of  tliis  covenant,  whicli  preceded 
Chrill:,  and  rs  abolifhed,  beyond  all  quellion  baptifm  is  or- 
dained in  its  ftead.  I  ihjould  admit  this,  if  1  were  a  Bap- 
till."  Adm-it  what,.  Sir,  if  you  were  a  Baptill  ?  "  If  cir- 
€umciiion  was  a  feal  of  this  covenant."  Yes,  Sir,  if  cir- 
cumcifion were  a  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  all  who 
were  circumcifed  were  fcaled  in  this  covenant  of  grace,  we 
would  admit  jufl  what  you  might  pleafe  to  prefcribe.  But, 
Sir,  the  whole  of  this  buunefs  of  circumcifion  being  a  feal, 
as  multitudes  are  in  our  day  made  to  believe,  is  a  mere 
farce,  or  religious  impoiltfon^ 

I  now  leave  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  to  your  future 
confideration,  and  come  to  review  a  few  of  your  words 
which  relate  to  I^ydia.  Speaking  of  what  I  obferved  of 
Lydia  and  her  houfehold,  after  mentioning  feveral  things 
which  I  fuggefted,  and  leaving  out  the  little  evidence  which. 
I  fet  down,  namely,  '  That  Paul  entered  into  the  houfe  o£ 
Lydia,  and  there  comforted  the  brethren,'  you  lay,  *'  Thefe 
fuppotkions.  Sir,  may  be  founded  in  truth,  but  who  knows, 
that  they  are  ;.  v.ho,  that  can  juflly  make  any  pretenfions  to 
impartiality,  can  believe  them  without  evidence  ?"     Your 

*  Gen.  xvii.  ro — 14,  23 — 27,  xxxiv.  15,  17,  21,  24.  Exod.  iv.  2^» 
Beut.  X.  16  XXX.  6.  Jolli,  v,  a,  ,3,  4,  5,  7,  2.  Jere.  iv  4.  ix.  25,  26. 
Luke  ii.  21.  John  vli,  22,  23.  Ads  vii.  8.  x.  4/.  xi.  2,  3.  xv.  i,  5.. 
xvi.  3.  xxi,  ai.  Rom.  ii.  25,  26,  28,  29.  iii.  1,30.  iv.  9. — 12.  xv  8.. 
1  Cor.  vii.  18,  19,  Gdl.  ii.  3,  7,  8,  9.  v.  2,  6,  11,  la,  13,  ij.  Eph. 
ti.  II.    Phil.  iii.  3,  5.     Colii.  II.    iiii  ll.    iv.  iz. 


6o  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin,       [Let.  IX. 

conclunon  is,  *'Upon  the  whole,  as  fuppofitions  are  mifera- 
ble  arguments,  the  evidence  is  left  jjlt  where  you  found 
it." 

Were  I,  Sir,  to  join  with  you  in  fentiment,  and  were  your 
readers  to  be  of  the  fame  opinion,  that  Juppofu'ior.s  are  m'tjer-' 
able  arguments^  we  might  all  of  us  have  one  idea  fuggefted 
to  our  minds  at  the  fame  moment,  whether  your  arguments 
be  not  all  of  them  of  that  defcription.  But,  efpecially  if 
fuppofitions  be  mirerable  arguments,  why  do  you  and  your 
denominaticn  reft  the  important  points  of  baptifm  and  its 
fubjefts  on  juft  fach  miferable  arguments  ?  For,  make  the 
beft  of  the  arguments  for  infant  fprinkling,  or  even  for  in- 
fant baptifm,  they  are  but  fuppofitions,  and  but  poor  im- 
probable ones  too  ;  yet,  in  the  face  of  your  brethren,  you 
fay,  fiippoJiKons  are  m'lf^rable  arguments.  Such  an  aflertion,  if 
true,  is  enough  to  ruin  the  pradice  of  infant  fprinkling,  or 
at  leaf'c  the  credit  of  fuch  a  praftice. 

You  fuppofe  that  laplixo  is  fometimes  ufed  for  fprinkling 
or  partial  wafhing,  but  you  produce  no  evidence,  unlefs  it 
be  fuppofiritioiis  evidence,  that  it  is  ever  once  io  ufed  in  any 
part  of  the  Siblc. 

You  fuppcfe  that  haph%o  is  fometimes  ufed  as  equivalent 
with  n'tpto,  but  you  find  no  place  where  it  is  thus  ufed,  or 
have  no  evidence  that  it  is  thus,  unlefs  it  be  fuppofed  evi- 
dence, which  comes  only  to  fuppoiiticn. 

You  luppofe  that  haptifmois  is  ufed  for  the  application  of 
fluids  in  every  way,  but  flill  you  want  evidence. 

You  fuppofe  that  Chrifl's  blefflng  little  children  is  an  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  iniant  baptifm. 

You  fuppole  that  what  Peter  fai  J  about  the  promife  of 
the  Spirit,  as  being  to  paients  and  children,  even  to  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call,  is  for  infaat  baprifm. 

You  fuppofe  thai  the  baptifm  of  I  yoia's  hcufehold,  of 
the  jailer's  houfehold,  and  of  Stepbanas's,  are  all  in  favour 
of  infant  baptifm. 

You  fuppoft:  that  many  other  things  are  alfo  in  its  favour  ; 
but  it  is  all  but  bare  fuppofition,  for  not  a  fyllable  is  men- 
tioned of  infant  bviptifm  from  Genefis  to  Revelation.  Now, 
is  it  not  furprifmg  that  you  ftiould  tell  the  world  (I'ot  your 
opponents  only,  but  yo'ir  friends  t'  o)  that  fuppofticns  are 
mijtrahle  arguments  P  In  facSt,  Sir,  if  this  be  admitted,  and 
fhould  it  be  generally  received,  that  fuppofitions  are  mifera- 
ble arguments,  your  examination  of  my  Sermons  will  lofe  its 
influence,  and  fo  will  your  whole  caufe  of  fprinkling  and 
infant  baptifm. 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auji'm.  6t 

The  next  thing  to  be  noticed,  is  your  reply  to  the  follow- 
ing propofition.  I  obferved,  '  Abraham's  children  after  the 
flefh  were  not  included  in  the  promile,  as  Paedobaptilts  of 
©ur  day  would  have  theirs.'  You  reply,  as  tlumgh  you 
did  not  underftand  me — "  If  you  mean  (fay  you)  that  tliey 
were  not  all  participants  in  the  bleffings  of  the  promile,  it  is 
admitted."  If  you.  Sir,  did  not  underftand  me  before,  I 
will  endeavour  that  you  may  now.  What  I  mean  is  this — 
*  They  which  are  the  children  of  the  flefli,  thefe  are  not  the 
children  of  God,  but  the  children  of  the  promife  are  counted 
for  the  feed  ;  for  this  is  the  word  cf  promife,  At  this  time 
will  I  come,  and  Sara  fball  have  a  fon,'  Rom.  ix.  8,  9. 
Not,  Hagar  fhall  have  a  fnn  j  not,  Ksturah  (hall  have  fix 
fons.  Abraham  had  eight  fons,  but  ifiiac  was  the  only  one 
of  the  eight  to  v^rhom  was  the  promife.  Now,  you  fay  this 
promife,  which  was  to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  is  to  you  and 
to  all  your  children :  hence  you,,  having  eight  fons,  claim 
the  promife  to  each  of  the  eight,  when  Abraham  could  claim 
it  but  for  one  of  his.  Do  yon  and  your  brethren  fuppofe, 
that  you  have  each  one  of  you  eight  parts  in  the  promife, 
and  Abraham  but  one  ?  It  is  no  wonder,  Sir,  that  you  could 
not  underftand  me.  I  defire  that  you  might,  for  the  future, 
have  a  good  underftanding,  when  you  fpeak  of  the  pronnfe, 
as  being  to  you  and  to  your  children,  and  of  putting  them 
into  the  covenant,  or  putting  the  /ml  of  the  covenant  upon 
them. 

In  pages  88,  89,  you  have  the  remarkable  paffage  which 
follows  :  "  In  pages  96,  97,  and  98,  (i.  e.  of  my  Sermons) 
you  run  (fay  you]  the  doctrine  of  pasdobaptifm  into  what 
you  call  legitimate  confequences  :  they  are  efght  in  number, 
and  they  are  frightful  things  indeed.  If  you  have  fuppofed 
pxdcbaptifm  embarraffed  with  all  thefe  confequences,  I  am. 
perfeiftly  afton'.ilied  hov/  you  could  find  a  confcience  to  prac- 
tife  it,  as  you  have  done." 

Refly.  Is  it  not.  Sir,  more  aftonifliing  that  you  can  prac- 
life  it,  after  thefe  confequences  are  laid  before  you  ?  But  you 
fi.nd  a  very  eafy  way  to  get  rid,  as  you  fuppofe,  of  the  whole 
difficulty:  the  way  you  take  is  this — fay  you,  "  All' thefe 
confequences.  Sir,  will  be  denied  by  every  intelligent  advocate- 
for  infant  baptifm."  How  intelligent,  I  will  not  prefume 
to  (aj,  a  perfnn  muft  be,  to  hold  a  pvemife  and  deny  all  the 
legitimate  confequences.  Should  you,  or  any  of  your  de- 
nomination, hereafter  undertake  to  deny  the  confequences. 
which  I  drew,  you  are  defired  to  ftate  the  principle,  and 
then  (how   the  dif agreement  between  that  and  my  confe- 


52  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auflln.       [Let.  IX. 

quences.  The  principle  of  the  Pssdcibaptifts  is  this — "  The 
fubjeds  of  baptifrn  are  to  be  determined  by  the  fubjeds  of 
clrcumciaon."  The  tirft  account  which  we  have  of  the 
iUbjccls  of  circumcifion,  and  perhaps  as  particular  account 
as  any  which  is.  given  us,  is  in  tlie  family  of  Abraham. 
Abraham  was  a  great  and  good  man,  and  on  his  account 
all  the  males  in  his  houfe  were  to  be  circumcifed,  whether 
they  were  young  or  old,  his  own  children,  or  bought  with 
money,  or  born  in  his  houfe.  Before  he  was  commanded 
to  circumcife  his  houfchold,  he  had  three  hundred  and  eigh- 
teen tr.iining  foldiers,  burn  in  his  own  houfe  :  how  many 
more  were  born  in  his  houfe,  or  bought  witli  his  money, 
before  the  day  of  their  circumcilion,  we  know  not ;  but  let 
it  be  more  or  lefs,  one  thing  is  certain,  they  were  all  to  be 
circumcifed,  on  account  of  Abraham's  being  a  good  man, 
full  of  faith. 

Now,  Sir,  your  principle,  or  the  principle  of  your  de- 
nomination, is,  that  the  fubjects  of  bapcifm  are  to  be  deter- 
mined by  tlie  fubjcirs  of  circumcifion- 

Hence,  my  Jiiii  confequence  was — Every  man  who  is- 
converted  to  the  Chriilian  religion  is  to  be  baptized,  and  all 
his  houiehold,  though  he  may  h.ive  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  training  foldin-s  born  in  his  own  houfe.  Not  only 
are  ihefe  fokiiers,  but  taeir  wives  and  cliiUiren,  and  all  other 
fervants  yt:Yi\:\  belorig  to  this  great  man's  houfe.  A  thoufand 
infidels  are  to  be  baptized,  becaufe  one  great  man,  their 
mafter,  is  chritlianized. 

My  Jectjtid  confequcnce  was — Tliefe  foldJers,  with  their 
wives,  children,  and  fervants,  are  all  to  be  confidered  und 
treated  as  church  members,  or  as  being  in  covenant :  in  the 
covenant  of  circumcilion,  or  fome  limilar. 

Thus  were  the  circumcifed  confidered  and  treated.  If 
baptifrn  have  taken  the  place  of  circumcilion,  and  the  fub- 
jecrs  of  the  one  are  to  be  determined  by  the  other,  tlien  muft 
thefe  foldiers,  wives,  and  children  be  confidered  and  treated 
in  the  fair.e  manner. 

The  other  confequcnces  the  reader  will  find  in  my  fiith 
Sermon,  and  confult  them  at  his  leifure. 

Now,  Sir,  how  you  could,  without  mentioning  either  prin- 
ciple or  confequence,  tell  the  world,  both  learr^ed  and  un- 
learned, "  that  all  thefe  confequences  will  be  denied  by 
every  inidUgeni  advocnie  tor  infant  baptifrn,"  is  a  little  to  be 
wondered  at.  I  have  hardly  intelligence  enough  to  under- 
ftand  what  you  intend  by  an  intelligent  advocate  for  infant 
baptifrn.     By  what  you  have  faid»  1  Ihoold  naturally  enough 


Let.  IX.]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlhu  63 

conclude,  that  by  an  intelligent  advocate  for  infant  baptifm, 
you  intend  one  who  knows  hov/  to  advocate  principles  and 
deny  the  natural  confequences,and  deduce  others  to  hisJiking. 

You  fay,  *'  That  my  confequences  are  frightful  things." 
I  drew  them  that  you  might  attend  to  them,  and  he  frightened 
or  driven  from  your  antichriftian  principle  :  but  you  ftill 
hold  the  principle,  at  leaft  in  meafure,  and  fecure  or  content 
yourfclf  under  the  idea,  that  every  intelligent  advocate  for 
infant  baptifm  will  deny  my  confequences.  How  you  will 
anfwer  it  to  the  Britilh  churchy  to  the  popes  of  Rome,  and 
to  a  multitude  of  other  learned  Psedobaptifts,  who  have 
pradtifed  upon  a  number  of  my  conclufions,  and  admitted 
the  reft  as  true,  fave  the  fifth  and  laft,  for  placing  them 
among  the  unintelligents,  is  left  for  you  to  determine. 

The  laft  confequence  which  I  drew  from  this  Psedobaptift 
principle,  That  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm  are  to  be  determined 
by  the  fubjedts  of  circumcifion,  is — It  doth,  fo  far  as  it  hath 
its  perfe(9:  work,  deftroy  the  very  idea  of  the  gofpel  church, 
contradid  the  prophets,  and  make  Paul  and  others  fpeak 
not  the  truth  ;  and  it  throws  us  back  to  the  ftate  of  the 
Jewiili  church. 

To  this  you  fee  fit  to  reply,  and  youi  reply  hath  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  laboured  attempt  to  confound  the  diftindion 
between  the  Jewifh  church  and  the  gofpel  church,  and  to 
make  your  readers  believe  them  to  be  both  one  and  the 
fame  thing.  Your  very  reply  goes  to  prove  that  your  prin- 
ciple would,  if  true,  throw  us  back  to  the  ftate  of  the  Jewifh 
church  ;  and  thus  it  proves  my  confequence  true. 

In  your  reply,  you  keep  a  juft  idea  of  the  Jewifh  church 
altogether  out  of  fight ;  you  do  not  mention  fo  much  as 
one  juft  trait  of  it.  Your  ai-guments  to  prove  the  gofpel 
church  and  the  Jewifh  church  to  be  one,  are — FirJ},  God 
manifefted  great  kindnefs  to  the  Jewifh  church  ;  he  carried 
them  as  on  eagles'  wings,  and  fome  of  thejii  greatly  rejoiced  in 
the  Lord  :  Secondly,  Tliat  the  Jewifh  church  confifted  of  fuch 
perfons  as  were  Abraham  and  Ifaac  :  thefe  are  your  words — . 
"  Are  Baptift  churches  generally  purer,  think  you,  than  a 
church  would  be  compofed  of  fuch  perfons  as  Alraham  ; 
and  where  is  the  inconfiftency  or  danger  of  admitting  the 
teftimony  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  i  Cor.  vii.  14.  that  the  chil- 
dren are  vifibly  holy  as  Jfaac  was  ?" 

There  is.  Sir,  no  inconfiftency  or  danger  in  admitting  the 
teftimony  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  but  there  is  both  inconfiftency 
and  danger  in  turejling  the  teftimony  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or 
in  mifapnlylng  it. 


G4-  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujiin,      '  [Let.  IX, 

Why,  Sir,  do  you  not  come  out  in  fair  day-light,  and  tell 
all  your  readers,  and  eipecially  fuch  as  love  darkrefs  rather 
than  light,  that  the  Jewiih  church  confifted  of  all  the  rebel- 
lious, ftifF-necked,  and  infidel  Jewsj  including  Scribes,  Phari- 
fees,  Sadducees,  and  all  hypocrites  among  them,  as  well  as 
the  few  godly  ones  who  might  be  found  ;  and  that  the 
gofpel  church  is  j aft  like  the  Jewifh,  fo  fav  as  it  can  be,  by 
including  all  perlbns,  of  every  defcription,  who  have  been 
baptized  or  fprinkled,  and  have  i^iot  been  caft  out  by  regular 
church  difcipline  ?  Come  out  thus,  and  let  poor  deluded 
fouls  know  your  real  fentiment,  or  a  fair  (tatement  of  it ; 
then  might  they  judge  for  themfelves.  If  you  deny  this 
being  your  fentiment,  I  will  prove  it  to  you.  Pages  87,  88, 
your  words  are — "  I  ajn  as  much  fhocked  at  your  derernflion 
of  infant  memher/h'ip  and  infant  hapt'ifm,  as  I  fliould  have  been 
had  you  denied  the  obligation  of  family  prayer."  Now, 
Sir,  you  believe  that  baptized  or  fprinkled  infants  are  churcli 
nembers  :  the  confequence  is  this — A  lan'-e  part,  perhaps 
more  than  half,  of  the  infants,  children,  infidels,  drunkards, 
and  liars,  in  our  nation,  are  m.embers  of  the  gofpel  church. 
Sir,  either  renoimce  the  erroneous  principle  on  which  infant 
baptifm  hangs,  or  admit  the  legitimate  confequences,  and  make 
the  beft  of  them.  If  you  pleafe,  never  ;>ga!n  think  to  get 
rid  of  my  confequences,  by  telling  the  public  that  every 
intelligent  advocate  for  infant  bajitifm  will  deny  them. 

I  have  one  thing  moie  to  notice,  in  your  plea  for  the 
l^ofpel  church  being  the  fame  as  the  Jewifh :  it  is  this — 
*'  How  does  pttdobaptifm  (fay  you)  deftroy  the  very  idea 
of  the  gofpel  church  ?"  You,  Sir,  anf.ver,  "  A  gofpel  church 
is  a  body  of  viiible  faints  or  holy  peifons."  What  do  you 
mean  by  this  anfwer  ?  If  you  mean,  by  viiible  faints  and 
holy  perfnns,  fuch  as  appear  to  poifeis  holhiefs  of  heart,  or 
to  be  believers  in  Chriii,  I  readily  agree  to  it :  but,  Sir,  you 
mean  no  fuch  thing  ;  you  mean,  a  gofpel  church  is  a  body 
of  perfons,  co:i;poied  of  believing  parents,  together  with 
their  bapli-^ed  or  fprinkled  children,  let  their  children  be 
what  they  may,  believers  or  infidels,  if  they  have  not  l)een 
cut  of?  from  the  chtirch  by  difcipline :  or  you  mean  a  body 
of  pcrions  made  up  of  a  number  of  converted  heads  of  fami- 
lies, v'itli  their  ungodly,  unconverted  families,  oee  your 
Letters,  pages  90,  91,  92,  ai^  elfewhere. 

This  is  the  way  which  your  own  church  is  made  up,  if 
your  pradlice  has  been  in  aqreomcnt  with  your  principles — 
holding  to  infant  memberihip,  and  children  memburihip,  and 
fervant  ir.embcrlhip. 


Let.  X.]         Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujiin,  65 

I  do  not  mention  thefe  different  church  memberftiips, 
becaufe  I  wifli  to  call;  odium  on  your  charadter,  or  on  that 
of  your  brethren,  but  becaufe  I  confider  thefe  to  belong  to 
the  inevitable  confequences  of  your  principle,  which  every 
intdligtut  ad'uocate  for  infant  baptifm  ov.ght  candidly  to  admit, 
and  becaufe  1  wilh  to  expofe  your  ar.tichriftian  principle,  and 
your  correfponding  antichriftian  practice. 

Wifiiing  you  reformation,  in  both  principle  and  pradice, 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER   X. 

RE\'EREND    SIR, 

IHxWE  reviewed,  with  fome  attention,  your  Ten  Let- 
ters, which  you  confider  as  an  Examination  of  my 
Seven  Sermons.  In  your  Letters,  v.'hich  you  have  given 
to  the  public,  you  have  faid  of  me  and  of  my  Sermons 
what  ycu  pleafed.  Of  your  performance,  I  have  nothing  to 
fay  as  to  its  ftrength  or  w^eaknefs,  or  with  refpedl  to  )?rur 
afTertions,  repetitions,  or  arguments ;  they  are  all  before  the 
public,  as  are  my  Sermons,  and  as  this  Review  I  expetfl  will 
loon  be.  Not  only  are  my  Sermons  and  your  Examination 
before  the  public,  but  they  are  both  before  Him,  who  knows 
what  is  truth,  and  whether  either  of  us,  or  whether  both  of 
us  have  written  and  publifhed  with  our  eye  fingle,  and  our 
wills  bowed  to  his. 

In  this  Letter  feveral  things  may  be  laid  before  ycu,  with 
a  defire  that  yon  may  receive  the  light  of  gofpel  truth,  rela- 
tive  to  the  firft  gofpel  ordinance :  but,  Sir,  unlefs  Gcd  be 
pleafed  to  give  you  a  large  Jloars  of  grace,  you  will  not  fo 
much  defire  the  light  of  convi<ftion,  as  the  light  by  which  to 
refute  what  I  have  written.  But  if  there  be  no  hope  of  your 
conviction  from  any  argument  of  mine,  yet  it  is  poffible  that 
you  will  yield  to  your  own  arguments  ;  for  you  have,  indeed, 
givei\  us  the  outlines  of  an  argument  or  two,  the  force  of 
which  I  fee  not  how  you  will  handfomely  evade. 

Your  firft  premife  is — "  There  muft  be  fome  evident  like- 
nefs  between  the  fubjeft  to  which  a  word  is  applied  in  the 
natural,  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the  fubjed  to  which  it  is 
applied  as  a  figure,  otherwife  there  is  a  grofs  impropriety  in 
the  figurative  ufe  of  it."  You  cannot  eafily  get  rid  of  the 
plain  truth  of  this  your  major  propofition. 

G 


66 ,  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr,  Aujlin.        [Let.  X. 

Your  fecond  premife  is — The  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
is  a  fubje(5t  to  which  the  words  burying  and  rifing  as  from 
the  dead,  arc  applied  as  a  figure,  and  water  baptiihi  is  un- 
doubtedly a  fymbol  of  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghojl.  Thefe 
are  your  own premifcsy  (fee  pages  6i,  44,  33,  34.)  You  are 
defiied  to  draw  your  oiun  conclujion. 

You  will  permit  me  to  refrelh  your  memory,  with  a  con- 
fefhon  and  promife,  which  you  made  to  me  in  your  firft 
Letter,  and  in  tliefe  words,  "  As  for  me,  I  confider  truth 
infinitely  preferable  to  any  party  inteieft,  cind  promife  to  you 
that  I  will  yield  to  evidence,  as  foon  as  it  is  j:'rerented." 

Another  of  your  arguments  in  favour  of  the  B.iptirts  (hall 
be  prefented  ;  for  1  fincerely  wilh  that  your  argnments  may 
be  found  unanfwerable,  ar.d  that  they  may  ii)urumentally 
produce  your  thorough  converfion. 

Your  major  propofilion,  in  this  fecond  argument,  is — Tlie 
fubjed  in  debate  between  the  Baptills  and  I'adobaptifts,  is 
of  great  importance,  and  it  can  be  brought  to  an  iflue,  and 
it  muji  be  brought  to  an  iifue.     (See  page  98.) 

Your  minor  propofition  is — '*  All  the  treatifes  and  fchemes 
which  the  Paedobaptifts  have  produced,  in  order  to  fettle  this 
debate,  have  been  embarrajfcd  with  material  objedlions,"  page 
05.  It  therefore  cannot  be  brought  to  an  iifue  upon  their 
embarrajfed  treatifes  or  fchemes,  "  bul  it  cm  be  brought  to  an 
ifliie,  and  it  7nujl  be  brought  to  an  iifue." 

Conclufion — We  can  be  Baptills,  and  we  muJi  be  Baptifts, 
and  that  will  bring  the  debate  to  an  ijfue. 

Now,  Sir,  I  will  prefent  you  with  an  argument  or  tv/o, 
which  may  be  partly  yours  and  partly  mine. 

What  I  lay  is.  The  plain,  the  literal,  the  common  mean- 
ing of  the  word  to  baptize  is  to  immerfe,  bury,  overwhelm, 
put  into  water,  or  the  like  :  you  fay  this  is  the  meaning 
fometimes,  efpecially  when  it  means  to  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  and  water  baptifm  is  undoubtedly  a  fymbnl  of 
ihe  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  therefore,  the  plain,  literal, 
and  common  fenfe  of  the  baptifmal  command  is,  that  the 
fub'efts  of  baptifm  itould  be  immerfed,  buried,  or  put  into 
"water,  or  the  like. 

Again — what  I  fay  is.  The  word  to  baptize  hath  in  the 
Bible  no  meaning  different  from  immerfion,  overwhelming, 
or  the  like.  You  hav.e  tried,  and  have  found  nothing,  to 
prove  that  it  hath  any  £)ppofite  meaning,  except  it  be  by 
fuppofitions,  which  you  fay  are  miferable  arguments :  there- 
fore, the  only  Bible  meaning  of  the  word  to  baptize  is  to 
immerfe,  overwhelm,  or  the  Hke  ;  or  at  moil,  there  is  noth- 
ing againft  it  but  miferable  arguments. 


Let.  X.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujiin,  Cj 

Again — The  word  baptifm,  and  even  in  Heb.  ix.  lO. 
Vi'here  it  is  laid  divers  baptifm s,  the  meaning  is  drvers  apph'- 
catinns  of  water  to  divers  fubjecfts,  all  which  imply  immer- 
fion,  or  putting  into  water,  or  the  like,  or  at  belt  there  is 
nothing  but  fuppofitions  againil  this  being  the  fenfe  ;  and 
even  if  it  had  any  different  fenfe,  fmce  the  gol'pel  baptiJm  is 
but  one  baptifm,  and  this  is  certainly  immerfiori  fometimes, 
as  when  they  were  baptized  in  the  river,  and  when  they 
were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  of  which  water  baptifm 
is  a  fymbol ;  and,  confequently,  at  all  times  ;  the  conclulion 
is  IHU  the  fame — that  the  only  gofpd  hapufm  Is  by  ivimerfion. 

Another  matter,  quite  worthy  of  your  attention,  I  have 
to  lay  befoi-e  you  and  your  brethren :  it  is  this — You  and 
your  brethren  have  prefumed  to  claim  feme  authority,  or  at 
leail  credit,  for  paedobaptifm,  and  for  fprinkling  children, 
from  confelfors  and  martyrs,  who  have  held  thofe  tradition- 
ary practices.  Now,  Sir,  the  fad:  appears  to  be,  tliat  you 
have  not  the  leaft  fhadow  of  ground  for  any  of  your  pre- 
tended authority  or  credit  from  this  quarter.  It  is  manifeft, 
that  you  do  but  amufe  and  millead  your  hearers  and  readers, 
in  the  whole  of  this  bufmefs.  Where  are  your  martyrs,  who 
have  died  in  defence  of  paedobaptifm  and  fprinkling  ?  Do 
you  find  them  in  Fox's  martyroiogy  ?  Do  you  find  them  in 
the  Bible  ?  Do  you  find  them  any  where  ?  No,  Sir,  yoa 
find  no  fuch  martyrs,  either  amongft  Proteftants  or  Papifts. 
You  find  good  men  and  martyrs  amongft  thofe  who  have 
embraced  the  error  of  baptizing  children,  and  even  among 
tiiofe  who  may  have  confentcd  to  fprinkle  them  ;  but  not 
one  who  has  ever  laid  down  his  life  as  a  witnefs  for  either 
of  thofe  errors  ;  indeed,  there  has  been  no  call  for  any  to 
do  thus ;  for  his  hoiinefs  the  pope,  and  his  clergy,  the  cage  of 
unclean  birds,  and  other  portions  of  antichrill,  have  never 
oppofed  thele  errors.  It  appears  that  Satan  would  be  di- 
vided againft  himfelf,  fhould  he  ftimulate  any  of  his  fubjedts 
to  perfecute  unto  death  any  good  men,  for  holding  either  . 
of  thefe  antichriftian  traditions.  But  both  Papifts  and  Pro- 
teitant  Psdobaptifls  have  perfecuted  unto  various  kinds  of 
death,  the  Baptifts,  who  have  nobly  laid  down  their  lives,  as 
witneffes  for  the  golpel  baptifm  and  the  gofpel  fubjeft". 

For  oppofing  infant  baptifm,  and  for  maintaining  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Baptifts,  hundreds,  about  the  year  1529,  were  put 
to  death  at  Saltzburg,  in  the  Palatinate,  at  Altzre,  in  Ger- 
many, and  at  many  other  places,  and  at  many  other  times.* 

*  See  Crifby's  Hiflory  of  Uii;  Englifli  8aj\tifts,  Ftefacc,  page  jo  ;  aftd 
Hiftwy,  pages  ja,  Auy  &e- 


68  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiim        [Let.  X. 

The  general  manner  of  their  death  was  to  be   beheaded, 
roaftecl^  or  drowned. 

It  would,  indeed,  have  been  a  furprifing  thing,  had  it 
been  as  you  and  your  brethren  intimate,  that  good  men 
have  died  as  witnefles  of  the  traditions  of  popes  and  councils. 
Wicked  men  may  die,  in  vindication  of  their  ovm  errors; 
but  we  are  not  to  expect  that  good  men  will  die  as  martyrs, 
lor  the  errors  which  the  wicked  have  propagated  among  the 
faints.  You  will  be  kind  enough,  I  hope,  never  to  force 
this  argument  into  your  fervice  again,  till  you  can,  amongft 
?.ll  the  martyrs  of  Jefus,  find  one  who  has  been  called  to  lay 
down  his  life,  as  a  witnefs  to  your  error  of  fprinkling  children. 

Your  attention  is  requefted,  Sir,  to  one  thing  more.  You 
and  your  brethren  are  not  only  contrary  from  both  the  Old 
Tertament  and  the  New,  but  you  are  contrary  from  each 
other,  and  you  begin  to  be  contrary  from  all  men.  From 
your  Examination  of  my  Sermons,  pages  12,  13,  16,  17,  you 
appear  not  to  know  when  baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  ; 
■whether  at  the  time  when  members  are  admitted  into  the 
church,  focn  after  it,  or  long  after,  or  whether  it  be  neceffary 
at  all,  in  order  to  church  memberlhip,  or  whether  before  or 
after  the  Lord's  fupper.  When  men  come  to  know  nothing 
about  a  fubjedl,  prudence  didlates  that  it  is  time  to  drop  it. 
You  would  never  traverfe  fuch  a  crooked  courfe,  with  rela- 
tion to  baptifm,  did  you  underftand  how  to  go  ftraight. 
You  would.  Sir,  do  well  to  fay  no  more  about  baptifm,  or 
elfe  take  the  Bible  for  your  guide,  or  pay  fome  attention  to 
the  church  of  Chrift,  which  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth  :  you  now  fet  afide  both,  and  hence  it  is  that  you  have 
loft  fight  of  the  fubje*?:.  You  muft,  indeed,  perfuade  Chrif- 
tians  to  believe  baptifm  to  be  of  little  worth,  or  they  cannot 
reft  contented  with  the  manner  of  your  handling  that  im- 
portant gofpel  ordinance. 

You  inform  us,  that  no  one  hath  written  well-  on  the  fub- 
je»5t  of  baptifm,  or  "  that  there  is  no  fcheme  .but  what  is 
embarrafled  with  7«a/ma/ objections,"  (page  94,)  or  at  leaft, 
there  is  none  on  your  fide  of  the  queftion  but  what  is  thus 
embarraffed.  At  the  fame  time,  you  tieat  with  very  little 
refpeft  what  hath  been  attempted  by  the  Baptifts  :  this  being 
the  cafe,  the  public  will  probably  exped  not  only  fometliing 
new  on  the  fubjecft,  and  fomething  great,  but  fomething  free 
of  embarraflments,  when  you  Ihall  fee  fit  to  favour  them 
with  yuur  volume,  which  you  encourage  us  to  expe<5i. 

Wilhing"  you  the  tru6  knowledge  of  gofpel  baptifm, 

I  am,  &c« 


Let.  X[.]       LeftcTf  fo  Rev,  Mr.  Aujtin,  69 


LETTER    XL 

REVEREND     SIR, 

HAVING  traverfed  through  your  Letters,  I  proceed  t© 
your  Appendix.  In  it  you  were  pleafed  to  notice  my 
pamphlet,  entitled,  Open  Communion  with  all  tvho  keep  the  Or- 
dinances as  Chrijl  delivered  them  to  the  Saints.  "  As  it  comes 
out  in  the  form  of  letters,  addreifed  to  Mr.  Anderfon,  the 
duty  of  replying  to  it  (fay  you)  is  properly  his,  I  fhall  not 
take  it  out  of  his  hands,  but  beg  leave  to  trouble  you  with  a 
few  remarks  on  what  I  find  in  this  work." 

Mr.  Anderfon  is,  Sir,  confeffedly  the  proper  perfon  to 
reply,  and  no  doubt  he  will,  if  he  ftill  confider  his  ground 
defenfible,  and  have  arguments  at  hand  for  the  bufmefs ; 
but  as  my  Letters  to  him  were  not  of  a  private  or  perfonal 
nature,  but  implicated  all  his  denomination,  as  being  with' 
him  in  the  fame  error,  he  probably  will  not  take  it  unkindly, 
that  you  fent  out  your  Appendix,  as  a  precurfor  to  what- 
niight  follow.  You,  Sir,  it  is  prefumed,  faid  but  little  in 
your  Appendix,  compared  with  what  you  confider  might  be 
faid  ;  you  will,  therefore,  not  be  offended,  fhould  I,  whilft 
replying  to  you,  keep  fomething  in  referve  againft  Mr.  An- 
derfon fhall  appear  with  the  main  body  of  arguments  :  1 
lliall,  however,  endeavour  to  iilence  fome  of  your  fuppnied 
refutation,  and  remove  your  fuppofed  flrength,  in  which 
you  truft. 

It  is  worthy  to  be  noticed,  that  in  the  fecond  pr.ge  of 
your  Appendix,  you  tell  me,  "  that  I  am  refpon'ible  to  the 
religious  public,  to  prove  that  to  baptize  invariably  means 
to  immei-fe,  and  that  only."  I  confider  this,  Sir,'  to  be 
already  done,  at  leall  io  far  that  you  have  not  been  able  to 
difprove  it :  befides,  this  point  may  receive  fome  additional 
light,  before  the  Letters  now  writing  fhall  be  clofed. 

You  add,,  in  the  fame  page,  "  The  world  mull  not  be 
impofed  upon  by  round  affeitions  and  dogmatic  declama- 
tion," nor  by  fuppcjitions,  you  fhould  have  faid.  "  We  are 
not  (fay  you)  to  be  put  out  of  the  viiible  fociety  of  believers, 
but  for  fome  evident  difqualifying  roafon-  And  now  you 
are  ferioufly  called  upon  to  prove  from  the  Bible,  what  with 
fuch  an  air  of  certainty  you  aiftime."  Ilavc  patience  with 
me,  and  if  the  Lord  will,  I  fhaii  endeavour  all  you  afkr  j 
thir,  you  may  expe<^  in  my  next  Letter. 

G    2 


7«.  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujiin.       [Let.  XI. 

Ti\  page  99,  you  tell  us,  that  "  the  difficulty  is  wholly  on 
our  part,  ana  t:iaL  it  is  without  ibuiuiation."     Here,  Sir,  you 
miiUke  in  whole.      Is  the  difficuUy  on  our  part,  when  you 
are  continually  taking  from  the  people  the  hey  of  hniiuJedge^ 
by   ivrejllng  the  Scriptures,  by  miiapplying  them,  and  by 
many  erroneous  interpretations,  fo  far  as  they  refpedl  gofpel 
baptifm  and  its  fubjedts  ?    Not  only  fo,  but  ye  enter  not  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  yourfelves,  and  them  that  are  enter- 
ing in  ye  hinder.     The  Avhole  tenor  of  your  Letters  to  me, 
is  to  judify  your  own  neglect  of  duty,  as  it  refpeds  baptifm, 
and  to  prevent  others  from  complying  with  theirs :    or,  (to 
exprefs  the  matter  in  milder  terms,)  the  manifeft   obje<5l  of 
your  Letters  is  to  juftify  your  pradice  of  fprinkling  inftead 
of  immerfion,  and  to  encourage  others  to  believe  and  pradife 
the  ikaio,  when  you  have  not  found,  and   cannot  find,  one 
fentence  or  woid  in  all  the  Scriptures,  to  warrant  your  prac- 
tice,  or  juttify  your  departure  from  gofpel  baptifm.     You 
have  fearched,  and  by  fearching  have  found  that  you  have 
nothing  but  fiippofitions  and  uncertain  conjedures,  for  your 
infant  fprinkling  or  infant  baptifm.     Mljerahk  bafts  this,  for 
the  foundation  of  our  faith  in   the  firft  golpel  ordinance. 
On  fuch  a  bafis  Hands  your  faith ;  and  by  fuch  weak  and 
beggarly  arguments  would  you  drive  us  from  gofpel  bap- 
tifm, or  to  confent  to  the  validity  of  fprinkling  ;  and  not 
only  fo,  but  you  contend  with  us,  becaufe  we  choofe  not  to 
reft  our  faith  and  venture  our  praftice  on  fuch  conjeflural 
grounJ,  when  we  have  for  our  prefent  faith  and  pradice  the 
broad  bafis  of  all  the  Bible,  fairly  and  unequivocally  in  our 
favour,  fo  far  as  it  mentions  the  fubjed.     You  furely  ought 
to  have  had  better  arguments,  and  fome  fads  in  your  favour^ 
before  you  pronounced,  in  the  face  of  infpiration  and  before 
the  world,  "  that  the  difficulty  is   wholly  on  the  Baptifts* 
part,  and  without  foundation." 

The  next  and  lafl  thing  in  your  pamphlet  is  now  to  be 
conildered  :  it  is  your  particular  refutation  of  my  fentiments 
on  open  communion  with  all  who  keep  tlie  ordinances  as 
Chrift  delivered  them  to  the  faints.  This  your  fuppofed  re- 
futation muft  have  a  particular  examination,  for  it  is  calcu- 
lated to  miflead  thoie  who  examine  things  very  partially. 

I  propnfe  to  ftate  your  refutation  as  explicitly  as  I  can, 
and  try  its  ftrength  as  conciiely  as  may  be.  You  begin 
your  refutation  thus — "  The  leading  principles  of  your  de- 
fence feem  to  be  thefe  : — 

"  L  The  fault,  fay  you,  is  wholly  ours,  becaufe  we  re- 
fufe  to  fubmit  to  an  exprefsly  appointed  ordinance  of  the 


Let.  XI.]       Letters  t*  Rev,  Mr,  Aujiin.  7 1 

gofpel."  "  We  contend,  that  we  as  ferioufly  reverence,  and 
as  conicientioufly  obferve  this  ordinance,  as  the  Baptills  : 
but  your  manner  of  applying  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  has  nothing 
to  do  with  baptifm :  here  we  are  at  iifoe.  You  have  yet 
furnilhed  no  proof;  we  have  furnifhed  clear  demonjiration  to 
the  contrary." 

Anf.  This,  Sir,  is  the  whole  of  your  refutation  of  what 
you  fet  down  for  my  firil:  principle. 

I  have  two  queftions  to  propofe,  and  then  fhall  leave  this 
part  of  your  refutation  to  your  future  refleftions.  The  Jirji 
is,  you  fay,  "  We  as  ferioufly  reverence,  and  as  confcien- 
tioufly  obferve  the  gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm,  as  the  Bap- 
tifts."  What  do  you  call  a  ferious  and  confcientious  ob- 
fervance  of  this  ordinance  ?  Saying  all  you  can  againft  it  ? 
Refufing  to  fubmit  to  it,  and  fubftituting  man's  invention 
in  the  room  of  it  ?  We  wifli  you  to  be  delivered  from  fuch 
ferious  and  confcientious  obfervances  of  the  commandments 
and  inventions  of  men.  Befides,  it  is  your  fentiment,  that 
this  ordinance  is  to  be  obferved  or  received  when  we  are 
infants,  when  we  can  know  nothing  about  it.  How  much 
ferious  reverence  and  confcientloufnefs  infants  have  we  know  not. 
Secondly — I'he  ftrength  of  your  refutation  is  fuppofed,  no 
doubt,  to  be  in  your  concluding  words,  which  are,  "  You 
have  yet  furnilhed  no  proof;  we  have  furnilhed  clear  demon* 
flratioH  to  the  contrary."  This,  is  worthy  of  obfervation — 
"We  have  furnilhed  (fay  you)  clear  demonftration !"  The 
queftion  is,  to  whom  \  and  where  ?  we  have  not  feen  it. 
Clear  demonftration  !  this  is  all  we  want :  if  you  have  fur- 
nilhed it,  it  ought  to  have  been  written  in  capitals,  that  not 
one  of  your  readers  (hnuld  have  pafled  it  over  unnoticed. 
The  truth  is,  you  have  millaken  the  bufmefs  :  you  have 
furniflied  no  demontlration  of  any  kind,  fave  it  be  this,  that 
you  are  oppofing  the  only  gofpel  baptifm,  and  that  the  con- 
trary from  what  yon  advocate  is  true. 

Your  ftatement  of  my  next  principle  is, 

"  II.  You  tell  us,  (lay  you  to  mej  the  perfect  idea  in 
the  prefent  controverfy  is,  "  The  adual  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table  is  to  be  confined  to  baptized  believers." 

This  principle,  Sir,  you  implicitly  grant  to  be  true,  and 
my  ftatement  juft  ;  and  contend  that  you  are  baptized  ;  and, 
inftead  oi  clear  demonjiration,  bring  in  your  congregations  as 
witnefTes  that  you  have  been  the  fubjedls  of  gofpel  baptifm, 
by  your  having  been  fprinkled  in  your  infancy,  which  is  a 
mere  human  iubftitute  for  gofpel  baptifm.     But,  Sir,  you 


72  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujiin.       [Let.  XI. 

know,  or  ought  to,  that  thefe  congregations,  frcm  whom 
you  have  fo  taken  the  key  of  knowledge,  that  they  know 
not  what  baptiim  is,  or  to  whom  it  (hould  be  adminiftered, 
are  no  witnefTes  in  this  cafe.  You  have  taught  them  to 
mifunderftand  the  plain  fenfe  of  the  Bible,  and  to  read 
fprinkling  for  baptifm,  and  Abraham's  houfehold  for  difci- 
ples  of  Chrift ;  and  now  would  conftrain  us  to  admit  them 
as  witnefTes.  No,  Sir,  we  (liall  admit  no  fuch  fuborned  or 
tutored  evidence  :   we  afk  for  your  dear  d;mnnJlration. 

III.  You  ftate  my  third  principle  to  be — "  The  being 
born  of  water  or  baptifm,  is  the  perfecft  and  vifible  line  of 
feparation  between  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift  and  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world."  "  Your  grand,  and  as  far  as  I 
have  obferved,  your  only  text  to  prove  this  is  John  iii.  5. 
'  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Gcd.'  But  this  darling 
doftrine  is  refuted — 

*'  r.  By  what  you  do  ;  for  you  baptize  perfons  upon  the 
ground  of  evidence  that  they  have  been  already  born  of  the 
Spiiit,  and  therefore  are,  before  baptifm,  vifible  believers.'* 
Anf  T'his,  Sir,  we  at  once  grant,  but  how  does  this  refute 
my  dodrine  ?  But  you  add,  "  and  of  the  k'ngdom,"  as 
though  to  be  a  vijibie  believer,  and  a  member  of  tliC  'u'lJibU 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  were  one  and  the  fame  thing.  By  thus 
confounding  things  you  may  keep  truth  out  of  fight,  and 
blind  your  readers,  but  you  can  never  in  this  way  refute  my 
doctrine. 

"  2.  This  darling  do«5trine  (fay  you  to  me)  is  refuted  by 
what  you  fay  ;  for  you  tell  us,  that  John's  baptifm  was 
gofpel  baptifm  ;  that  the  multitudes  from  all  Judea  and 
Jerufalem,  who  en  braced  John's  baptifm,  previoufly  brought 
forth  fruits  of  repentance,  yet  when  they  were  baptized  they 
were  only  prepared  to  be  introduced  into  the  kingdom  of 
the  Mefliah."  Sir,  I  find  no  fault  when  you  mii'quote  my 
words,  provided  you  retain  the  idea,  but  here  you  have  mif- 
taken  both.  Speaking  of  the  pe(;ple  made  ready  and  pre- 
pared by  John,  my  words  aie,  page  49,  '  Of  this  people,  and 
of  this  only,  for  aught  appears,  Chrift  took  and  formed  the 
firft  vifible  gofpel  church  ;  or  this  prepared  people  were  the 
church,  though  not  yet  organized.'  Had  you  quoted  my 
words,  this  part  of  your  refutation  might  have  been  fpared. 
3.  You  tell  me  that  my  do(5lrine  "  is  refuted  by  the  text 
itfelf ;  for  whatever  be  defigned  by  the  kingdom  of  God, 
and  whatever  is  to  be  unJerftood  here  by  being  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit,  both  are  neceifary,  as  pre-requifite» 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujiin,  73 

to  a  perfon's  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  b'trih 
goes  before  the  entrance"  Anf.  If  you  will  be  kind  enough 
to  inform  the  public  for  how  long  a  time  a  perfon  muil  be 
born  before  he  enters  into  the  Tvorld,  then  they  will  pofTefs 
a  neceflary  datum  to  underftand  your  new  dodrine,  that  the 
h'lrth  goes  \)&£q)XQ  \hQ  entrance ;  till  you  do  this,  your  third 
refutation  might  alfo  have  been  fpared,  for  the  public  will 
not  be  able  to  underftand  this  new  doftrine,  v/ithout  fome 
clue  to  it.  In  the  mean  time,  the  common  fenfe  of  the 
public  will  lead  them  to  believe  my  dodlrine,  that  the  birth 
is  the  entrance. 

Say  you  again,  "  The  being  born  of  water  is  placed  before 
being  born  of  the  Spirit."  Anf.  If  you  will  read  the  third 
verfe,  which  you  had  juft  mentioned,  which  fpeaks  of  being 
born  again,  you  may  find  your  miftake. 

4.  My  dodtrine,  you  fay,  "  is  refuted  by  abundance  of 
other  Scripture  evidence ;  for  example,  there  were  multi- 
tudes who  belonged  to  the  vifible  kingdom  of  God  before 
Chrift,  who  were  not  born  of  water."  Anf.  You  ought. 
Sir,  to  have  told  us  where  this  Scripture  evidence  is,  which 
proves  that  what  Chrift  faid  is  not  true.  Chrift  faith,  '  Ver- 
ily, verily,  1  fay  unto  you,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water, 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
You  fay  there  is  Scripture  evidence,  that  multitudes  have 
belonged  to  the  vifible  kingdom  of  God  before  Chrift,  who 
were  not  born  of  water.  Befides,  Sir,  Chrift  fpeaks.  Mat. 
iv.  17.  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  as  not  having'  made  its- 
public  appearance,  but  as  being  then  at  hand.  Where  you 
fee  fit  to  contradid  Jefus  Chrift,  in  diretfl  terms,  I  leave  you 
to  anfwer  it  to  him. 

In  the  next  place,  you  tell  us,  "  that  Chrift  himfelf  was 
never  born  of  water."  Had  you  forgotten,  or  did  you 
fuppofe  that  none  of  your  readers  would  recoiled,  Mark  i. 
9.  that  JefuS  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  bap- 
tized of  John  IN  Jordan  ? 

Again,  fay  you,  "  Matthew  and  Levi,  Philip  and  Nathan- 
ael,  Andrew  and  Peter,  and  probably  the  reft  of  Chrift's 
difciples,  were  not  born  of  water,  as  the  commencement  of 
their  vifible  ftanding  as  his  difciples."  But  had  not  thefe 
been  born  of  water,  baptized,  of  John  ?  Had  not  John 
made  them  ready  ? 

"The  penitent  thief  upon  the  crofs  (fay  you)  was  not 
born  of  water,  and  yet  the  atteftation  of  Chrift  in  his  behalf 
determincfs  him  to  be  a  vifible  member  of  his  kingdom." 
Here,  Sir,  you  have  either  a  double  intention,  or  you  di- 


74  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujtin.        [Let.  XI. 

re^ftly  contradift  the  Saviour ;  in  either  cafe  I  leave  you  to 
your  own  reflections.  Befides,  our  Lord  did  not  fay  that 
the  thief  belonged  to  his  vifible  kingdom,  but  that  he  Ihould 
that  day  be  with  him  in  paraJifc. 

Again,  you  fay,  "  Cornelius,  Paul,  and  the  Ethiopian 
eni:»uch,  were  certainly  vifible  believers  before  they  were 
born  of  water."  Did  any  perfon  ever  deny  it  ?  I  certainly 
do  not,  nor  ever  did  :  but  this  is  as  far  from  the  fubje.ft  in 
debate,  as  the  north  is  from  the  fouth.  The  queftion,  which 
you  appear  to  have  forgotten,  is,  Whether  any  ever  belong- 
ed to  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  vifible  church,  without  being 
born  of  water  ?  Not  whether  any  have  been  believers  before 
they  were  born  of  water :  for  my  principle  is,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  Bible  is,  tliat  none  are  to  be  baptized  but  vilible 
believers,  and  that  fuch  are  to  be  baptized,  and  thus  intro- 
duced into  the  vilible  church. 

5.  "  Your  dodrine  (fay  you  to  me)  is  refuted  by  what 
you  prefume  is  my  view  of  the  condition  of  many  who  die, 
either  in  their  infancy,  or  childhood,  or  youth,  without  hav- 
ing ever  been  immerfed." 

ylnf.  Do  you  fuppofe  that  I  believe  that  infants,  and  chil- 
dren, and  youth,  v/ho  have  not  been  immerfed,  belong  to 
the  vifible  kingdom  of  God  ?  If  you  do,  you  mofi:  certainly 
niuft  be  quite  unacqiiainted  with  what  I  believe.  Perhaps 
your  idea  is  this,  that  I  believe  fome  infants,  children,  and 
youth,  who  have  not  been  immerfed,  may  go  to  heaven,  and 
be  finally  foved.  This,  Sir,  I  do' believe;  but  what  hath 
this  to  do  with  the  prefbnt  controverfy  ?  As  foon  as  you 
fhall  underftandingly  compare  this  part  of  your  fuppofed 
refutation  with  the  doctrine  to  be  refuted,  you  will  fee  that 
they  have  no  connexion  with  each  other,  and  the  one  can 
never  be  injured  by  the  other. 

You  clofe  your  refutation  of  my  exclufive  dodrine,  as 
you  term  it,  by  faying,  "  It  is  enough,  if  the  fingle  principle 
of  your  exclufive  do^ftrine  is  found  to  be  unfcriptural." 
True,  Sir,  this  would  be  enough  ;  and  had  you  been  able  to 
have  found  one  fcripture  againfl:  it,  you  would  have  dcferved 
■well ;  but  a  thoufand  texts  which  fay  nothing  about  it,  will 
never  prove  it  unfcriptural. 

Upon  another  of  my  leading  principles,  you  obferve, 

"  IV.  To  juflify  your  denying  us  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  you  fay,  *  Not  the  leaft  intimation  is  given, 
that  ever  one  was  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  prior  to  his 
being  baptized.'     Ii\  reply  to  this,  I  obferve, 

*'  I.  That  otJr  proof  that  we  are  baptized  is  as  clear  as 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aufan.  75 

yours  is  that  you  are  baptized."  AnJ.  This  is  the  very 
thing  for  you  to  piove. 

"  2.  It  is  evident  (fay  you)  that  the  difciples  were  ad- 
mitted to  communion  with  their  Lord  at  the  fupper,  and 
yet  there  is  no  evidence  that  tliey  were  ever  baptized.'* 
Anf.  There  is  no  evidence  but  they  were,  and  fo  it  lieips 
you  not.  Such  arguments  would  never  help  a  good  caufe. 
Befides,  there  is  evidence  that  they  were  baptized,  Luke  vii. 

29.  *  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him, juftified  God, 

being  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  John  ;'  and  thus  it  ruins 
this  part  of  your  caufe. 

"  3.  The  exprefs  command  of  Chrift  to  his  followers, 
indii'crirainately,  is,  Do  this  in  remembrance  cf  me.  You 
mnft,  therefore,  prove,  either  that  we  are  not  his  followers, 
or  that  you  have  a  warrant  to  difpenfe  with  that  law,  and 
deny  us  the  privilege  of  complying  with  it."  Certainly, 
Sir,  I  muft  prove  one  of  thefe,  and  nothing  is  eafier  than  to 
prove  the  firil — tliat  you  are  not  his  followers,  in  that  very 
example,  the  copying  of  which  is  indilpenfabie,  if  you  will 
enter  into  his  vifible  kingdom.  Chrift  was  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan ;  you  refufe  to  be  baptized  any  where ;  you  will  only 
be  fprinkleS  :  thus  you  are  not  his  followers  in  the  firft 
gofpel  ordinance  ;  and  he  hath  no  where  commanded  you, 
or  any  others^  to  partake  of  the  fecond  ordinance,  whilft 
they  neglcift,  much  lefs  whilft  they  deny  the  firft.  You 
have  never  vifibly  forfaken  all  that  you  have  for  Chrid's 
fake  and  the  gofpel's :  in  no  other  way  can  you  becon  e 
Chiift's  vifible  difciples,  fee  Luke  xiv.  33.  There  is  but 
one  way  pointed  out  in  the  gofpel,  by  which  we  are  mani- 
feftly  to  forfake  all,  at  the  comimencement  of  our  vifible 
difciplefliip,  and  that  one  way  is  to  be  born,  into  his  king- 
dom, of  water,  or  to  be  baptized.  You  rejedt  this  courfcl 
of  God  againft  yourfelves — you  refufe  to  be  born  of  water, 
or  to  be  baptized  ;  you,  tlitrefore,  are,  in  this  important 
article,  not  his  followeis,  and  lb  not  of  the  vifible  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Tliere  is  no  law  w  hich  requires  you  to  come, 
till  you  bewollowers  of  Chrift,  and  members  of  his  vifible 
kingdom,  nor  is  there  any  law  of  Chrift's  which  allows  you 
to  come  before  :  m  e  are,  therefore,  under  obligation  to  refufe 
you  admittance  among  us. 

You  fay,  again,  '*  You  mufl  fhow  us  that  Chrift  has  fome- 
where  made  this  deficiency,  (i.  e.  the  want  of  baptifm)  m 
all  cafes,  a  bar  to  communion  at  his  table."  No,  Sir,  fhow 
us  where  any  have  liberty  to  come  with  this  deficiency 
about  them. 


76  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.       [Let.  XL 

page  105,  you  quote  the  following  lliles — 

"  Do  this,  he  cries,  till  time  fliall  end, 
"  In  mein'ry  of  your  dying  Friend; 
"  Meet  at  my  table  and  record 
"  The  love  of  your  departed  Lord." 

"We  feel  (fay  you)  all  the  tendernefs  of  this  invitation, 
and  folicit  a  place  among  the  guefts."  We  fay,  come  and 
welcome ;  but  come  according  to  the  pattern,  example,  and 
commandment  given.  But  you  make  my  anfwer  to  be  very 
different :  you  tell  the  public  that  my  reply  to  your  folici- 
tation  is,  *'  No,  a  vaunt,  you  are  not  among  the  followers  of 
Jefus  ;  you  are  unbapti^ed  heathen."  This,  Sir,  is  an  impru- 
dent expreffion  ;  and  I  have  juft  caufe  to  call  you  to  ac- 
count before  the  public,  for  mannfaduring  fuch  an  indecent 
anfwer,  and  palming  it  upon  your  readers  as  being  mine. 
You  have,  Sir,  faid  hard  things  enough  in  your  pamphlet, 
without  tliis  attempt  to  make  me  appear  uncivil. 

By  what  you  fay,  pages  106,  107,  it  is  manifeft,  that  you 
are  quite  difpleafed  with  the  name  given  to  your  denomina- 
tion, which  is  peculiarly  your  own.  By  the  name  Paedo- 
rantifts,  you  ought  ever  willingly  to  be  known,  till  yoti 
change  your  prad^ice.  If  you  diflike  your  name,  do  you 
fuppofe  that  the  great  Head  of  the  church  will  be  pleafed 
with  your  practice,  which  anfvvevs  exadly  to  it  ?  You  con- 
fider  Paedorantifts  to  be  a  contemptuous  name  ;  if  it  indeed 
be  fo,  your  pradtice  is  a  contemptuous  practice,  for  the  name 
and  the  practice  perfe-ftly  agree  together.  Your  pradtice  is 
indeed  contemptuous,  for  it  contemns  the  ordiiiance  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  for  which  it  is  fubftituted.  By  this  fubflitution  you 
have  polluted  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord,  or  made  it  void 
by  the  traditions  of  men  ;  and  it  is  time  for  you  to  inquire 
how  you  fliall  anfwer,  when  he  fhall  afk  by  what  authority 
you  have  done  thefe  things.  The  argument  which  you  now 
ufe,  that  great  and  learned  men  have  thus  done,  will  be  but 
a  poor  one  then.  Tliis  argument  is  no  better  than  the  Jews 
might  have  ufed  in  Nehemiah's  day,  when  their  fathers  had 
not  kept  the  feafl;  of  tabernacles  in  its  order,  according  to 
the  command,  for  a  thoufand  years.  The  truth  is,  from 
the  days  of  your  fathers  ye  have  gone  away  from  the  Lord's 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  and  have  not  kept  it.  Return  unto 
the  Lord,  and  he  will  return  unto  you. 

I  agree,  Sir,  never  to  give  you  the  appellation,  Paedoran- 
tifts, after  you  fhall  produce  one  example,  precept,  or  fair 
and  full  Scripture  confequence,  to  fliow  that  fprinkl'wg  is  fo 
much  as  once,  in  all  the  Bible,  put  for  Chriftian  baptifm. 


Let.  XL]       Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlln,  77 

If  this  cannot  be  done,  you  do  not  appear  to  advantage,  to 
manifeft  any  uneafinefs  at  your  name,  which  perfectly  defig- 
nates  your  practice,  and  diftinguiflies  your  denomination. 
Your  pradiice,  and  not  your  name,  fhould  difpleafe  you. 

You  intimate,  page  107,  that  I  fhall  oblige  you,  and  many 
of  your  denomination,  by  explaining  what  I  mean  by  ad- 
drefling  Mr.  Anderfon,  Brother  Anderfon.  This  is  eafily 
done  :  by  it  I  mean  this — To  manifeft  my  belief  that  he  is 
born  of  the  Spirit,  notwithftanding  he  refufes  to  be  born  of 
water. 

In  the  clofe  of  your  Appendix,  you  appeal  from  all  au- 
thors, both  Greek  and  Roman,  from  Jerome,  Calvin,  and 
Dr.  Gill,  from  all  corruptions  and  fuperadditions  of  any 
church,  or  the  world,  to  that  good  book,  which  is  by  way  of 
eminence  called  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  laft  words  of  your  poftfcript,  you  ma'ke  a  formal 
appeal,  in  thefe  words — "  But  to  the  Bible,  Sir,  to  the  Bible.'* 
Haft  thou  appealed  unto  the  Bible  ?  unto  the  Bible  {halt 
thou  go. 

Wiftiing  you  a  full  hearing,  a  fair  trial,  and  your  errors  x 
juft  condemnation, 

I  am,  8:c. 


78,  Letlcrs  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujl'in.      [Let.  XII. 

LETTER    XIL 

a  E  V  E  R  F.  N  D    SIR, 

TTAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?   unto 
•*"  •*■   the  Bible  Ihalt  thou  go. 

Pleafe  to  attend   to   the   following,  and   the 
Bible  will  you  fee-  for  Go/pel  BaptiJ'm. 


Here,  Sir,  is  the  Bible  for  baptifm,  to  which  you  have 
appealed,  and  by  which  yoa  and  fome  of  your  works  are 
now  to  be  tried. 

The  following  are  all  the  texts  which  clearly  fpeak  of 
gofpel  bap:i>i. 

1.  Mat.  iii.  5,  6,  7.  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerufalem, 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
vere  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan  :  —  but  when  he  law  many 
of  the  Pharii'ees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptifm,  he 
faid,  &c.  '     • 

2.  Ver.  1 1.   I  Indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  &c. 

3.  Ver.  13,  14,  15,  16.  Then  crmelli  Jefus  from  Galilee 
to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him  ;  bnt  John  for- 
bade him,  faying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and 
comeft  thou  to  me?  And  Jefus  anfwering,  faid  unto  him. 
Suffer  it  to  be  fo  now ;  for  thus  it  becon.cth  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteoufnefs :  then  he  fuffered  him.  And  Jefus,  when  he 
was  baptized,  went  up  ftraightway  cut  of  the  water. 

4.  Chap.  xxi.  25,  26,  27.  The  baptifm  of  John,  whence 
was  it  i*  from  heaven  or  of  men  ?  And  they  rea/oned  w'llh. 
themf elves.  Sec. 

5.  Chap,  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c. 

6.  Mark  i.  4,  5.  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
preach  the  baptifm  of  repentance  for  the  remifllon  of  fins. 
And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
they  of  Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
of  Jordan,  &c. 

7.  Ver.  8,  9,  10.  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water. 
! —  And  It  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  days,  that  Jefus  came  from 
Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan. 
And  ftraightway,  coming  i/f>  cut  of  the  water,  &c. 

8.  Chap.  xi.  30.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 


Let.  XIL]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr*.  Aujiin,  79 

9.  Chap.  xvt.  15,  16.  And  he  faid  unto  them,  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,'  (Sec. 

10.  Luke  iii.  3.  And  he  came  into  all  the  country  about 
Jordan,  preaching-  the  b?ptilrn  of  repentance,  &c. 

1 1.  Ver.  7,  8.  Then  laid  he  to  the  multitude  that  cane 
forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,  kc. 

12.  Ver.  12.  Then  came  alio  publicans  to  be  baptized. 

13.  Ver.  16.   I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water. 

14.  Ver.  21.  Now,  when  all  the  people  were  baptized,  it 
came  to  pafs,  that  Jefus  alio  being  baptized,  &c. 

15.  Chap.  vii.  29,  30.  And  all  the  people  that  heard 
him,  and  the  publicans,  judilied  God,  being  baptized  with 
the  baptifm  of  John.  But  the  Pharifees  and  lawyers  reje»5led 
the  counfel  of  God  againll  themfelves,  being  not  baptized 
of  him. 

16.  Chap.  XX.  4.  The  baptifm  of  John,  was  it  from 
heaven,  or  of  men  ? 

17.  John  i.  25,  26.  Why  baptized  thou  then,  if  thou  be 
not  that  Chrift,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet?  John  an- 
fwered  them,  faying,  I  baptize  with  water. 

iS.     Ver.  28.  Beyond  Joidan,  where  John  was  baptLir;';. 

19.  Ver.  31.  That  lie  fliould  be  made  manifcft  to  marl, 
therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water. 

20.  Ver.  33.  He  that  fent  me  to  baptize  with  water. 

21.  Chap.  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  g^  •water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  &c. 

22.  Ver.  22.  After  thefe' things  came  Jefiis  and  hio  dif- 
ciples  into  the  land  of  Judea  ;  and  there  he  tarried  v/itii 
them,  and  baptized. 

23.  Ver.  23.  And  John  alfo  Y'as  baptizing  in  JEnon, 
near  to  Salim,  becaufe  there  was  much  liuiia-  there  ;  and  they 
came,  and  were  baptized. 

24.  Ver.  26.  Behold,  the  fame  baptizeth,  and  all  men 
come  to  him. 

25.  Chap.  iv.  I,  2,  The  Pharifees  had  heard  that  Jefus 
made  and  baptized  more  difclples  than  John,  (though  Jefus 
himfelf^baptized  not,  but  his  difciples. ) 

26.  Chap.  X.  40.  Beyond  Jordan,  into  the  place  where 
John  at  firfl:  baptized. 

27.  Acfts  i.  5.  John  truly  baptized  with  water. 

28.  Ver.  22.  Beginning  from  the  baptifm  of  John. 

29.  Chap.  ii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them.  Repent, 
and  be  baptized  ev6ry  one  of  you '  in  the  name  of  Jefu3 
Chrift, — and  ye  fhall  receive  thegift  of  the  Holy  Ghoit. 


So  Letters  to  Rev,  Mr,  Aujiin.  '  [Let.  XII. 

30.  Ver.  41.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
x\ere  baptized. 

31.  Chap.  vlii.  12,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concernnig  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himfelf  believed  alfo ;  and  when  he 
VMS  baptized,  &c. 

32.  Ver.  16.  Only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jefus. 

33.  Ver.  36 — 39-  And  as  they  went  on  their  way  they 
came  unto  a  certain  water :  and  the  eunuch  faid.  See,  here 
is  water  :  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip 
luid.  If  thou  believefl;  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  niayeft. 
And  he  aufweied  and  faid,  1  believe  that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the 
Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  ftand  flill : 
and  tliey  went  down  both  in/o  the  water,  both  Pliilip  and 
the  eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were 
tome  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 

34.  Chap.  ix.  18.  And  he  (Saul)  arofe,  and  was  baptized. 
^^.     Chap.  X.  37.  After  the  baptifm  which  John  preached. 

36.  Ver.  47,  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  watet,  that  thefe 
ftiould  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghoft 
ti5  well  as  we  ?  And  he  €on^!r..indsd  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  ' 

37.  Chap.  xi.  16.  John  indeed  baptized  with  water. 

38.  Chap.  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  be- 
fore his  coming,  the  baptifm  of  repentance  to  all  the  people. 

39.  Chap.'xvi.  15.  And  when  fhe  (Lydia)  was  baptiz- 
ed, and  her  houfehold. 

40.  Ver.  33.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailer)  and  all 
his,  ftraightway. 

41.  Chap,  xvili.  8.  And  many  o£  the  Corinthians  hear- 
ing, beheved,  and  were  baptized. 

'42.  Ver.  25.  He  (ApoUos)  fpake  and  taught  diligently 
the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptifm  of  John. 

43.  Chap.  xix.  3,  4,  5.  Unto  what  then  were  ye  bap- 
tized ?  And  they  faid.  Unto  John's  baptifm.  Then  faid 
Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm  of  repentance, 
faying  unto  the  people,  That  they  {hould  believe  on  him 
w  hich  iLould  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jefus.    ■ 

44.  Chap.  xxii.  16.  And  now,  why  tarriefl  thou?  arife, 
and  be  baptized,  and  inrjli  aivay  tliy  fins,  calling  on  the 
n.ime  of  the  Lord. 


Let.  XIl.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiijlhu  B  i  ' 

45.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Know  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jeius  Chrill,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death,  &c. 

46.  Ver.  5.  If  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likenefs  of  his  death,  &c. 

47.  1  Cor.  i.  13 — 17.  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crifpus 
and  Gaius  ;  let  any  Ihould  lay  that  I  had  baptized  in  mine 
own  name.  And  I  baptized  alio  the  houfehold  of  Stepha- 
nas :  befides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any  other.  ■ 
For  Chrift  fent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gofpeL 

'     48.     Chap.  vi.  II.  But  ye  are  walhed. 

49.  Chap.  XV.  29,  Elfe  what  Ihali  they  do  which  are 
baptized  for  the  dead  ? 

50.  Gal.  iii.  27.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Chrilt  have- put  on  Chrift. 

51.  Eph.  iv.  5.  One  baptifm. 

52.  Chap.  v.  26.  That  he  might  fantflify  and  cleanfe  it 
(the  church)  with  the  waihing  of  water  by  the  word. 

53.  Col.  ii.  12.  Buried  with  him  in  baptifm,  wherein 
alfo,  ye  are  rifen  with  him. 

54.  Titus  iii.  5.  According  to  his  mercy  he  faved  us,  by 
the  walliing  of  regeneration,  &c. 

^1^.     Heb.  X.  22.  Our  bodies  tvaJJoed  -viixh  pure  water. 
56.      I  Peter  iii,  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tifm doth  alfo  now  fave  us. 

Here,  my  dear  Sir,  you  have  in  plain  view  diredly  before 
you  all  the  Bible,  fo  far  as  it  refpedls  the  matter  of  gofpel 
baptifm. 

The  court  to  which  you  have  appealed  is  now  opened. 
Now  feleft  your  witnefTes,  and  have  your  evidence  ready  ; 
for  to  trial  you  muft  come.  Every  text  is  allowed  to  be  a 
good  witnefs,  and  to  pofief*  evidence  fufficient  to  fet  the' 
accufed  free,  upon  bearing  teftimony  in  his  favour. 

You  are  now.  Sir,  upon  your  trial  before  the   court  of 
Truth  ;  charged  with  •violating  and  profaning  the  Jirjl  gofpel ' 
ordinance. 

Say  you,  Guilty  or  not  guilty  ?    You  fay,  Not  guilty^ 

Then  the  trial  muft  proceed. 

Where  is  your  text,  your  witnefs,  which  by  example,  by 
precept,  or  by  intuitive  confequence,  teftifies  that  fprinkling, 
or  partial  ivajlnng,  iri  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Ploly 
Ghoft,  is  gofpel  baptifm.  Name  your  texts,  yoiir  witnefies. 
Call  tliem  one  by  one.     Call  them  all,  if  you  pleafe. 

H    2 


82  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr-,  AiuTm.      [Let.  XII. 

Mat.  ill.  5,  6,  7.  is  the  fiift.  What  fays  this  wknefs  ? 
Then  went  out  unto  him  Jeruf;ilem,  and  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jcidan,  ar.d  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jor- 
dan, &c.  Call  all  the  other  witnclTes,  frojn  Matthew  to  Peter. 
The  witnelfes  havin^:^  been  feverally  called,  and  the  teili- 
mony  of  each  feparately  taken — 

Court.  You,  S.  A.  fiippofeJ  that  thefe  witnefres,  at  lead 
feme  of  them,  would  have  Ipoken  in  your  favour :  but  fvp- 
pofiUojis  do  not  pafs  for  evidence  at  this  court.  What  have 
your  witnelfes  teftified  ?  The  tellimony  of  each,  as  it  refpeds 
your  pradice,  is  Tcktl — Thou  art  'wd;^htd  in  the  balances,  and 
art  found  'wanting. 

Now,  Sir,  for  the  trial  of  immerfion  for  gofpel  baptifm. 
Call  the  witmdes  one  by  one.  The  witneifes  being  called, 
tl:e  teflimony  of  each  is.  My  plain  and  common  fenfc  of  the 
cafe  is,  that  immerfion  is  goipel  baptifm.  Call  feme  of  the 
Vk'kneiTes  again.  Call  Mark  i.  5.  This  witnefs  teftifies,  that 
he  faw  John  baptizing  a  multitude  of  his  difciples  in  the 
river  of  Jordan.  Call  Mark  i.  9.  The  teilimony  of  this 
tv'ltnefs  is,  that  he  faw  John  baptizing  the  Bead  aod  H-/JbdnJ 
of  the  Church,  Jefus  Chrift,  in  Jordan;  and  that' he  faw 
him,  after  the  ordinance  was  adminiftered,  ccmlng  upjiraight- 
nvny  out  of  ike  'water.  Call  Heb.  x.  22.  This  witnefs  af- 
firnieth,  that  in  gofpel  baptifm  the  fubjeJcs  had  their  bodies 
waftied  with  pure  watei.  Call  i  Peter  iii.  21.  The  tefti- 
rnony  of  this  witnefs  is,  that  as  Noah  was  faved  in  the  ark 
from  a  drowning  world,  fo  are  the  baptized  faved  in  the 
V.  atcr  from  a  burning  world  :  that  is,  baptil'm  being  an  anti- 
Irpon  or  figure,  anfwering  to  the  figure  the  ark,  it  figura- 
tively points  out  the  Saviour's  purpofe  of  faving  his  difciples 
liom  a  fiery  deluge,  wliich  fhall  burn  up  the  world  and 
destroy  the  ungodly.  He,  therefore,  as  a  token  of  his  great 
kindnefs,  dlrCifls  that  they  be  put  all  under  water  in  biiptifm  ; 
that  not  fo  much  as  an  hair  IhoiU  J  be  fmged,  or  the  fmell  of 
fire  pafs  on  them. 

Immerfion  being  tried,  is  found  perfedlly  innocent,  and  i» 
pronounced  to  be  the  matter  of  gofpel  baptifm. 

Shouldft  thou,  S.  A.  yet  hefitate  whether  fprinhling  may 
not,  in  fpecial  inftances,  be  allowed,  another  witnefs  muft  be 
again  called.  Call  Eph.  iv.  5.  One  Lord,  one  faith,  on$ 
hap:ifm. 

Cnurt.  Our  judgment  is,  that  the  error  of  S.  A.  hath  no 
cou»^tenance,  from  any  precept,  example,  or  fair  c(  nfe- 
quence,  from  any  thing  which  hath  been  faid  or  doae  by 
Jc-feis  Chrift,  or  any  of  his  infpired  ferva»ts. 


Lst.  XII.]        Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Avjiin.  83 

HAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?  unto 
the  Bible  (halt  thou  go. 

Pieafe  to  attend  to  the  following,  and  the 
BiELE  you  will  fee  for  the  Suhjedl  of  Gofpel 
Bapfifm. 

Here,  Sir,  is,  if  I  miftake  not,  every  text  in  which  the 
BiELE  m mifeftly  defines  the  futjeds  of  gofpel  baptilm. 

1.  Mat.  iii.  7,  8,  9.  When  he  faw  many  of  the  Pharlfees 
and  Siividucees  come  10  his  baptifm,  he  faid  unto  them,  O 
generation  of  vipers  !  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  meet  for  re- 
pentance :  and  think  not  to  fay  within  ycurfelves,  We  have 
Ahraham  to  our  father. 

2.  Ver.  II.  1  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  re- 
pentance. 

3.  Chap,  xxviii.  19.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name,  3cc. 

4.  Mark  i.  4>  5,  John  did  baptize  in  the  wildernefs,  and 
preach  the  baptilm  of  repentance  for  the  rcm](fiin  of  fins. 
And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
tliey  of  Jerufalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the 
river  of  Jordan,  conf effing  their  ft ns. 

5.  Chup.  xvi.  15,  16.  And  he  faid  unto  them.  Go  ye 
into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gofpel  to  every  creature. 
Ke  that  belie'veth,  and  is  baptized,  &c.  " 

6.  Luke  iii.  7,  8,  9.  Then  faid  he  to  the  multitude  that 
came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him,  O  generation  of  vipers  ! 
who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring 
forth,  therefore,  fruits  luorthy  of  repentance  ;  and  begin 
not  to  fay  within  yourfelves.  We  have  Abraham  to  our 
father.  —  And  now  alio  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of  the 
trees,  &c. 

7.  Ver.  12.  Then  came  alfo  publicans  to  be  baptized, 
and  faid  unto  him,  Mafter,  ivhat  fhall  lue  do  P 

5.  Chap.  vii.  29,  30.  And  all  the  people  that  heard  him, 
and  the  publicans,  juftined  God,  being  baptized  with  the 
baptifm  of  John.  But  tiie  Phariftes  and  lawyers  rejeded  the 
cvunfel  of  God  againft  themfeives,  bting  not  baptized  of  him. 

9.  John  iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  'water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  &c. 

10.  Chap.  iv.  I.  Jefus  made  and  baptized  nacre  difclples 
than  John. 


84  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Atijiin,        [Let.  XII. 

11.  A<fls  ii.  38.  Then  Peter  faid  unto  tli&m,  Refent,  and 
be  baptixed  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jeius  Chrilt,  for 
the  reinijpon  oi  Jins,  and  ye  rtiall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft. 

12.  Ver.  41.  Then  they  tliat  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized. 

13.  Chap.  viii.  I3,  13.  But  when  they  believed  Phih'p 
preachmg  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jefus  Chrill:,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women.  Then  Simon  himfelf  beheved  alfo  ;  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c. 

14.  Ver.  36,  37.  What  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
And  Phihp  faid.  If  thou  believejl  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
maycft.  And  he  (the  eunuch)  anfwered  and  faid,  I  believe 
that  Jefus  Chrift  is  the  Son  of  God. 

I  5.  Chap.  X.  48.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  thefe 
fhould  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Gho/i 
as  well  as  we  ? 

16.  Chap.  xiii.  24.  When  John  had  firft  preached,  be- 
fore his  coming,  the  baptijm  of  repentance  to  all  the  people. 

17.  Chap.  xvi.  14,  15.  A  certain  woman  named  Lydia, 
a  feller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  who  ivorjhipped 
God,  heard  us  ;  whofe  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  (he 
attended  unto  the  things  which  were  fpoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  the  was  baptized,  and  her  houfehold,  &c. 

18.  Ver.  33,  34.  And  was  baptized,  he  (the  jailer)  and 
all  his,  ftraightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into 
his  houfe,  he  fet  meat  before  them,  and  rtjoiced,  believing  in 
God  ivith  all  his  houfe. 

19.  Chap,  xviii.  8.  And  many  of  the  Corinthians  hear- 
ings believed,  and  were  baptized, 

20.  Chap.  xix.  4,  5.  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptifm 
of  repentance,  faying  unto  the  people.  That  they  Jlooidd  believe 
on  him  which  fhould  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chrift  Jefus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized,  &c. 

21.  Chap.  xxii.  16.  And  now,  wby  tarriejl  thou?  arife^ 
and  be  baptized,  and  luajh  away  thy  fins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

22.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Knoiv  ye  not,  that  fo  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jefus  Chrift  were  baptized  into  his  death  ? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death  ; 
that  like  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  fo  we  alfo  Jliould  walk  in  newnefs  of  life. 

23.  Gal.  iii.  27.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Chrift  have  put  on  Chrift. 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Anjlin.  85 

24.  \  Peter  HI.  21.  The  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tifm  doth  now  fave  us,  («o/  che  putting  away  of  the  filth  of 
the  flefh,  but  the  anfnver  of  a  good  confcience  toward  God,) 
by  the  refurredion  of  Jefus  Chrift. 

Here,  Sir,  you  behold,  in  full  view,  the  court  to  which 
you  have  appealed,  to  be  again  in  feffion. 

Before  this  court  you.  Sir,  ftand  indided  for  the  following 
high  crimes  or  mifdemeanors  :  i.  For  teaching  the  people 
to  mifunderftand  the  laws  of  Chrifl's  kingdom  :  2.  For  do- 
ing what  you  could  to  bring  into  this  kingdom  thofe  who 
have  no  gofpel  liberty  to  come  :  3.  For  fome  public  at- 
tempts to  prolong  and  to  increafe  the  blindnefs  of  many,  as 
to  the  fubjefts  of  gofpel  bxptifm. 

You  are  now  fet  before  the  court  of  Truth  for  your  trial. 

What  fay  you  to  the  indidment  ?    Guilty,  or  not  guilty  ? 

Ar.f.     Not  guilty. 

Then  you  muft  be  proved  guilty. 

You,  as  a  teacher  of  the  gofpel,  have  taught  the  people, 
that  the  children  of  believers  were  to  be  baptized,  on  ac- 
count of  their  parents'  faith. 

Court.  Read  the  laws  of  Chrift's  kingdom.  The  laws 
being  read — Not  a  word  is  found  for  you,  but  much  againft 
you ;  particularly  the  ftatutes  recorded  Mat.  iii.  7,  8,  9. 
Luke  iii.  7,  8,  9.  and  in  fcveral  other  places :  you,  there- 
fore, ftand  ccnvided  of  the  firft  claufe  of  the  indidment. 

As  to  the  fecond  claufe  of  the  indidment — you  have  bap- 
tized or  fprinkled  infants  ahd  unbelieving  children,  and  thus. 
'intentionally  brought  them  into  Chrift's  kingdom,  or  done 
what  you  could  to  place  them  there. 

Court.  You  confefs  the  fad,  but  plead  that  the  laws  of 
Chrift's  kingdom  enjoin  the  pradice.  Read  the  laws,  that 
the  perfon  on  trial  m;iy  be  ccnvided  from  the  mouth  of  the 
law.  The  laws  are  re ad-^Not  a  word  is  found  for  infant 
baptifm,  baptifm  for  believers'  children,  or  for  unbelievers' 
baptifm  of  any  kind.  I'he  law  fpeaks  of  the  baptifm  "of 
believers,  and  gives  liberty  for  none  befides.  Hence,  you 
ftand  convided  of  wradifmg  the  traditions  of  men :  which 
was,  for  fubftance,  uTe  fecond  claufe  of  the  indidment. 

As  for  the  laft  claufe,  it  is  a  fad  of  fuch  public  notoriety, 
you  will  to  that  readily  plead  guilty  ;  otherwife,  3'our  Letters 
to  D.  M.  with  the  Appendix,  will  be  laid  before  the  court. 
What  fay  you  ?    AnJ.   Guilty. 

Court.  The  judgment  of  this  court  is,  that  thou,  S.  A.  art 
guilty,  in  both  matter  and  fornaj  as  fet  fcrtjli  iii  the  indidment. 


815  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aujlin.      [Let.  XII. 

HAST  thou  appealed  unto  the  BIBLE  ?   unto 
the  Bible  llialc  thou  go. 

Pleafe  to  attend  to  the  following,  and  you  will 
fee  the  Bible  for  Communicants. 


The  following,  if  I  miftake  not,  is  the  who'.'j  ]>ible,  fo 
far  as  it  fpeaks  of  the  Lord's  fuppcr,  and  delines  the  quali- 
fications of  tht  accepted  gtiells. 

1.  Mat.  xxvi.  26,  27,  28.  And  as  they  were  eating, 
Jefus  took  bread,  and  blelfed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
the  difciples,  and  faid.  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And 
he  took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  fay- 
ing, Drink  ye  all  of  it :  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new 
teftament,  w  hicli  is  Ihed  for  many,  for  the  reniiffion  of  (ins. 

2.  Mark  xiv.  22,  23,  24.  And  as  they  did  eat,  Jefus 
took  bread,  and  bleffed,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  them, 
and  faid,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the 
cup,  and  when  he  had  given  thanks  he  gave  it  to  them,  and 
they  all  drank  of  it :  and  he  faid  unto  them,  This  is  my 
blood  ot  the  new  teftament,  which  is  flied  for  many. 

3.  Luke  xxii.  19,  20.  And  he  took  bread,  and  gave 
thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them,  faying,  This  is 
my  body,.which  is  given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance" 
of  me.  Likewife  alfo  the  cup,  after  fupper,  faying.  This 
cup  is  the  new  teftament  in  my  blood,  which  is  fhed  for  you. 

4.  A(5ts  ii.  41,  42.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  hi"^. 
word  were  baptized :  and  the  fame  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thoufand  fouls.  And  they  continued 
ftedfaftly  in  the  apoftles'  doiftrine  and  fellowihip,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers. 

5.  Ver.  46,  47.  And  they,  continuing  daily  with  one 
accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  from  houfe  to, 
houfei  —  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  fuch  as 
ftiould  be  faved. 

6.  Chap.  XJT.  7,  II.  And  upon  the  fiift  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  difciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow  ;  and 
coptinaed  his  fpeech  until  midnight.  When  he  had  broken 
bread,  and  eaten,  and  talked  a  long  while,  even  till  break  of 
day,  fo  he  departed. 

7.  I  Cor.  X.  16,  17.  The  cup  of  bleffing  which  we  blefs, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Chrift^   the  bread- 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Au/tim  By 

■uhich  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Chrift  ? 
For  we,  beuig  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body  :  for  <we 
are  alLpartahrs  of  that  one  bread. 

8.  Chap.  xi.  1 6,  20.  But  if  any  man  feem  to  be  conten- 
tious, we  have  no  fuch  cujlom,  neither  the  churches  of  God. 
When  ye  come  together,  therefore,  into,  one  phxce,  this  is 
not  to  eat  the  Lord's  fupper. 

9.  Ver.  23 — 29.  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that 
which  alfo  I  delivered  unto  you — That  the  Lord  Jefus,  the 
fame  night  in  v.hich  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread  :  and  when 
he  had  given  thanks  he  brake  it,  and  faid,  Take,  eat ;  this 
is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you :  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  After  the  fame  manner  alfo  he  took  the  cup, 
when  he  had  fupped,  faying.  This  cup  is  the  new  tellament 
in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  -  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  fhew  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.  Where- 
fore, whofoever  ihall  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  of  the 
Lord  unworthily,  fhall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Lord.  But  let  a  man  examine  himfelf,  and  fo  let  him 
eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to 
himfelf,  not  difcerning  the  Lord's  body. 

Here,  Sir,  you  befiold  the  court  to  which  you  have  ap- 
pealed, once  more  convened,  for  your,  trial. 

You  now  ftand  before  this  court,  to  anfwer  to  the  follow- 
ing indictment. 

Thou  art  accufed  of  having  infmuated,  before  the  friends 
and  enemies  of  king  Jefus,  that  he  hath  left  the  order  of  his 
houfe  and  worfhip  at  fuch  loofe  ends,  that  it  cannot  be  de- 
termined, from  the  rules  given,  in  what  order  the  two  great 
gofpei  ordinances  are  to  be  adminiftered — whether  the  firft 
lall,  or  the  laft  firft  ;  or  vv'hether  it  be  of  any  confequence 
which  ihall  have  the  priority  :  that  is,  whether  baptifm  fhall 
precede  the  Lord's  fupper,  or  the  Lord's,  fupper  precede 
baptifm  ;  or  whether  it  be  of  confequence  which  Ihall  be  firft. 

Counfellor.  Sir,  every  di<flate  of  prudence  (Wrongly  fug- 
gefls  to  you,  that  your  wifdom  is,  to  plead  guilty,  and  caft 
yourfelf  upon  the  mercy  of  the  court.  Should  you  not,  out 
of  your  own  mouth  you  will  be  condemned.  Your  Letters 
to  D.  M.  and  your  Appendix,  both  pronounce  you.  Guilty, 
guilty. 

Court.     What  fay  you  ?    Guilty,  or  not  guilty  ? 

^nf.     Guilty. 


88  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Aujlin,     [Let.  XIL 

Court.  Read  all  the  King's  laws  which  relate  to  the 
lubjed,  for  the  violation  of  which  S.  A.  hath  been  here  in- 
di<5ted,  and  to  which  indi(5lment  he  pleads  guilty  ;  that  if  he 
will  fho^  himfelf  an  honeft  man,  he  ttiay  be  no  more  ar- 
raigned before  us  for  any  fimilar  mifdemeanors.  Read 
diftinftly  Mat.  xxvi.  26,  27,  28.  Mark  xiv.  22,  23.  Src, 
Doft  thou,  S.  A.  lee,  and  perfedly  underftand,  that  there  is 
no  law,  ftatute,  or  claufe,  which  affords  the  lead  poflible 
plea,  that  any  ever  was,  or  of  right  fhould  be,  admitted  to 
the  table  of  the  Lord,  before  he  fubmitted  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm  ?  and  that  the  order  of  Chrift's  houfe  is  plainly 
fet  forth  ?  Is  farther  light  needed  ?  read  Luke  vii.  29,  30; 
read  alfo  Luke  i.  17.  where  John's  work  is  defcribed  to  be 
to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.  Read  alfo 
•what  took  place  whilft  John  was  making  ready  this  people, 
and  preparing  them  for  the  Lord,  Mat.  iii.  i — 6.  John 
preached  repentance,  and  the  baptifm  of  repentance,  and 
baptized  them  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  Read  again,  Adts 
ii.  41,  42.  They  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized, &c. 

Court.  Thou,  S.  A.  haft  been  indifted  before  this  court — 
I.  For  having  perverted  the  gofpel  baptifm,  by  changing 
it  for  fprinkling,  an  invention  of  men — 2.  For  pleading  that 
you,  and  confequently  th?!\:  your  children,  have  Abraham  to 
your  father,  and  that  on  this  account  they  were  fit  fubjefts 
of  gofpel  baptifm,  and  that  in  this  way  thou  haft  violated 
the  laws  of  Chrift,  as  to  the  fubje(5ls  of  baptifm — 3.  For 
having  impeached  the  honour  of  the  Chriftian  Lawgiver,  by 
teaching  that  matters  were  left  by  him  at  uncertainties,  what 
and  how  things  fhould  be  done  in  his  houfe  and  kingdom, 
the  church,  and  for  feveral  other  collateral  offences.  Thou 
didft  well  by  appealing  to  this  court,  that  thou  mighteft  have 
a  full  hearing,  and  receive  judgment  without  partiality. 
This  court  having  taken  every  part  of  each  trial,  had  before 
them,  into  full  confideration,  find  thee,  S.  A.  guilty,  guilty^ 
guilty,  as  fet  forth  in  the  feveral  indidments.  The  fentence 
which  the  court  (hall  inflid  on  thee,  will  not  be  publickly 
pronounced  this  day  :  the  court,  however,  from  motives  of 
compaffion,  fee  fit  to  inform  thee,  that  Ihould  repentance, 
manifefted  by  reformation,  be  found  in  thee,  their  fentencfe 
vyjll  be  mixed  with  very  much  mercy. 

Thou  art  uqw  permitted  to  go,  for  a  few  days,  whither 
thou  wilt,  and  no  man  fhall  hurt  thee,  provided  thou  haft 
continually  about  thee  the  King's  laws,  which  thou  haft 
violated,  and  do  not  openly  traufgrefs  them  in  future. 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev,  Mr,  Aujtin,  J59 

The  principal  part  of  what  I  purpofed  to  fay  to  you,  Sir, 
in  the  pubHc  hearing,  I  have  now  faid  ;  you  muft,  however, 
permit  me  to  fay  a  few  tilings  more. 

Among  the  many  things  which  might  be  mentioned  to 
profit,  the  following  only  will  find  place  for  the  prefent. 

1.  It  is  worthy  of  the  reader's  particular  obfervation,  that 
you  have  not  found  fo  much  as  one  text,  which  fays  fo  much 
as  one  word  about  fprinkling  as  being  gofpel  baptifm ;  not 
one  precept,  not  one  example,  nor  one  plain  confequence, 
which  Ihows  fprinkling  to  be  from  heaven  :  and  had  you  not 
forbidden  me  to  go  to  Rome,  I  could  have  fliown  that 
fprinkling  for  baptiim  was  one  of  the  children  of  the  man  of 
fin.  It  mull  appear  a  lingular  matter,  to  every  perfon  of 
difcernment,  that  you  fliould  forbid  me  to  go  to  the  ancient 
fathers,  to  prove  your  pradice  to  be  of  men,  when  you,  at 
the  fame  time,  take  the  liberty  to  bring  in  the  modern 
fathers,  to  fhow  your  do(ftrine  from  heaven.  Do  you  not 
know.  Sir,  that  in  this  particular  you  have  exadtly  imitated 
the  pope  and  his  clergy  ?  They  would  not  fubmit  to  have 
their  errors  confronted  by  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
but  they  would  prove  the  purity  of  their  prefent  practice, 
becaufe  his  holinefs  the  pope,  and  his  holy  catholic  church, 
have  thus  pradlifed  for  many  years. 

2.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  critical  attention,  why  you  have 
not,  and  why  you  cannot,  produce  one  Scripture  precept, 
example,  or  fair  confequence,  to  prove  that  ever  one  infant, 
child,  or  fervant,  or  foldier,  was  baptized  upon  the  faith  of 
another,  or  becaufe  the  parent,  mafter,  captain,  or  fome 
other  perfon  believed.  The  reafon  why  you  produced  do 
fcripture  which  was  to  your  point,  is  but  too  manifeft  ;  you 
had  none  to  bring. 

3.  Another  confideration  you  aredefired  to  take  into  feri- 
ous  and  immediate  contemplation  :  it  is  this — You  are  ac- 
countable, not  to  men  only,  but  to  the  Lord,  for  your  fup- 
pofititious  attempts  to  keep  the  ignorant  and  credulous  in 
the  belief  and  pradice  of  their  fuperftitious  and  antichrif- 
tian  traditions.  If  you  have  any  thing  in  favour  of  infant 
fprinkling,  or  infant  baptifm,  which  can  bear  the  light  of 
truth,  we  wifh  you  to  uflier  it  forth  to  public  view  as  foon 
as  poflible  :  but  if  you  have  nothing  but  conjedures,  fuppo- 
fitions,  and  dubious,  uncertain  confequences,  we  wifh  you 
to  let  them  fleep  in  their  native  darknefs  ;  for  as  often  as 

.  you,  or  your  brethren,  make  fuch  dark  and  benighted  at- 
tempts, to  palm  upon  the  Chriftian  world  the  invention.    T 


9*0  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Auflin.      [Let.  XII. 

men  for  the  ordinances  of  Hearcn,  you  reproach  3'our  Maker. 
His  ordinances  and  pofitive  inftitutions  never  did,  do  not 
now,  and  never  -will,  Itand  in  need  of  fuch  blind  arguments 
to  give  tliem  currency  ;  the  bare  ruppoiliion  that  they  do, 
is  a  reflection  upon  his  benevolence,  or  upon  his  wiidom. 

4.  Another  thought  I  vvilh  to  fuggsO:,  for  your  confidera- 
tion :  it  is  this — Should  you  be  diilatisfied  with  the  judg- 
ment which  the  Scriptures  have  palled  upon  your  traditionary 
practices,  you  are  defired  to  remember,  that  by  them  you  and 
your  ivorks  are  to  be  tried  ;  and  happy  for  you,  if  your  works 
only  fhall  be  burnt  up.  It  will  be  for  you  but  a  poor  plea,' 
at  the  judgment,  to  fay,  Many,  of  reputation,  believed  and 
praiflifed  with  you.  Yuu  have  appealed  to  the  Bible  ;  if  yoii 
will  hearken  to  it,  it  will  be  well  ;  otherwife,  the  blood  of 
many  may  be  required  at  your  hands.  I  fmcerely  wijh  that 
you  may  repent  of  your  deeds,  and  yet  be  a  burning  and  a 
iliining  light  in  feme  golden  candleftick.  Not  that  you 
might  believe  as  I  do,  but  that  you  riiight  believe  and  prac- 
tife  as  the  gofpel  enjoins,  and  no  more  wound  the  fnfftrnig 
■flock  of  God,  and  caufe  the  daughters  of  the  uricircumcifed 
to  rejoice,  and  the  hypocrites  and  unbelievers  to  tiiumph 
.over  the  churc^. 

"What  yet  remains  to  be  laid  before  you,  is  a  few  deduc* 
tlons  or  confequences  from  what  we  have  paffed  over. 

I.  The  fum  total  of  your  arguments  againfl  the  reafon- 
ings  in  my  Sermons,  is  a  colleSivn  oi  fuppofit'iGiiSy  which  yoa 
fay  are  nuferahle  arguments. 

2..  Your  Examination  of  my  Sermons  hath  a  tendency  to 
lengthen,  and  perhaps  to  augment,  the  difference  between 
your  denomination  and  the  Baptilb ;  but  it  hath  no  diredl 
aptitude  towards  fettling  the  difpute.  The  Bapillis  are, 
generally  fpeaking,  determined  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of 
the  court  of  truth  ;  before  which  bf)th  your  pamphlet  and 
your  practice  have  been  tried  and  condemned. 

3.  Another  confequence  is,  that  you  have  darkened  the 
counfel  of  the  Lord  by  words  without  knowledge  :  this  is  the 
beft  which  we  can  fay  of  your  performance,  feeing  by  it  you 
have  attempted  to  turn  us  from  the  right  ways  of  the 
Lord. 

4.  Another  confequence  is,  you  have,  fo  far  as  you  could, 
taken  from  the  people  the  ley  of  knowledge,  by  reprefenting 
plain  truths  in  fuch  a  wrong  manner,  as  to  lead  your  preju- 
diced readers  to  believe,  that  there  is  very  little  or  no  truth 


Let.  XIL]      Letters  to  Rev.  Mr,  Auftin,  91 

revealed,  as  to  the  important  fubjeds  on  which  you  havs 
written. 

5.  You  have  implicitly  contradidled  the  Bible,  in  that  you 
liave  obvioufly  intimated  that  there  are  divers  kinds  of 
Chriftian  baptifms,  when  the  Bible  fays,  One  baptifm. 

6.  It  appears  that  you  have  done  what  you  could  to' re- 
move the  land-mark  of  die  King  of  Ifrael  :  you  have,  with- 
out authority,  and  contrary  from  the  plain  tenor  of  the  New 
Teftament,.  informed  us,  that  perfons  may  be  members  of 
the  vifible  church  of  Chrift,  and  not  yet  baptized.  Eefides, 
you  have  fpoken  lightly,  or  at  leafl  very  inconfiderately,  of 
the  divine  rite  of  Chriiliau  baplil'm  ;  you  have  treated  it  as 
being,  in  a  great  degree,  an  uncertain  and  unimportant  or- 
dinance. 

7.  Another  confequence  is,  that  unlefs  your  traditfonary 
rite  of  fprinkling,  your  tradition  of  infant  baptifm,  and  your 
tteivly  invented  fcheme  of  admhUng  unLaptlzcd  perfons  to  the' 
Lord's  table,  can  obtain  a  ftronger  fupport  than  your  fup- 
pofitions,  or  others  like  them,  they  will  all  of  them  be  tveatecl 
as  intruders,  and  relics  of  popery,  io  far  as  truth  fliall  obtain 
a  candid  hearing. 

8.  You  and  your  denomination  not  only  rejeft  the  coun- 
fel  of  God  againft  yourfelves,  being  not  baptized,  and  fo 
will  not  enter  into  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift,  but  them 
who  are  entering  in  ye  hinder. 

9.  Another  dedu6tion,  which  appears  naturally  to  flow 
from  what  hath  been  faid,  is,  that  had  you  been  on  Bible 
ground,  the  Scriptures  would  not  have  failed  you  on  every 
point,  fo  as  not  to  have  lent  you  one  fiiir  argument,  either 
from  precept  or  fatl,  or  from  intuitive  confequence.  But, 
Sir,  the  fad:  is  too  notorious  for  you  honourably  to  deny  it,, 
that  you  have  not  even  ib  much  as  one  fair  argum.ent  from 
the  Bible,  (and  you  have  appealed  to  it,)  to  fupport  either 
fprinkling,  infant  bapliiiTi,  or  unbaptized  -church  members, 
or  for  communion  with  thofe  v;ho  rejeifl  the  counfel  of  God 
againft  themfelves,  being  not  baptized,  only  fprinkled  ac- 
cording to  man's  inventions. 

10.  The  reafon  why  you  and  many  others  have  had  Co 
much  difficulty  in  preventing  Chriftians  of  their  focieties 
from  embracing  iromerfion,  as  gpfpel  baptifm,  is  becaufe  it 
is  fo  plainly  taught  in  the  Bible.  We  likewiie  fee  the  foun- 
dation of  your  difficulty,  in  fatisfying  your  hearers  tha» 
Jp-nnhlingi  mati's  fulJlHute  for  baptifm,  vi'ill  anfwer  for  the  firft' 
Chriftian  ordinance  :  it  is  this — ;-\Qthing  is  found  in  the  Bible 


$2  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Aiiftln.      [Let.  XII. 

for  this  fprinlcling  fubftitute,  which  is  faft  going  into  dif- 
repute  ;  it  will  foon  be  in  perpetual  difgrace. 

1 1.  Another  dedu(ftion  is,  that  the  public  fhould  be  adver- 
tized, that,  fhould  you  prefent  them  with  your  propofed 
▼olume,  they  are  not  to  expedt,  that  when  you  treat  on  bap- 
tifm,  on  the  fubjefls  of  baptifm,  or  on  unbaptized  church 
members,  or  on  unbaptized  communicants,  that  you  will 
produce  one  plain  text  from  the  Bible,  to  prove  your  fenti- 
ments  corred  ;  but  that  they  will  probably  find  many  texts, 
which  have  no  direct  connexion  with  either  of  the  fubjefts, 
produced  to  prove  each,  refpeiflively ;  for  the  public  ought 
not  to  expe(5t  impoffibilities  :  and  as  the  Bible  is  totally,  totally 
filent,  as  to  countenancing  either  of  the  fubjeds,  which  you 
exped  to  fet  in  a  clear  point  of  view,  no  text,  Jlre(5t  for  either 
of  them,  can  juftly  be  looked  for. 

You  do,  indeed,  Sir,  appear  to  me  to  pofTefs  a  curious 
pofition :  for  you  would  make  a  lingular  figure  before  the 
public,  Ihould  you  go  to  Greece  or  Rome,  ^6  popes  or  car- 
dinals, councils  or  conclaves  for  evidence,  fince  you  have 
forbidden  me  to  argue  from  any  fimilar  fource  ;  and,  at  the 
fame  time,  you  have  appealed  to  the  Bible,  and  that  hath 
nothing  to  fay  for  you,  dired:Iy  or  indireflly :  you  find 
nothing  for  you  there,  but  filence  on  the  one  hand,  and  on 
the  other  many  precepts  and  examples,  enjoining  it  upon 
you  to  change  both  your  words  and  pradice.  In  this  pofi- 
tion, and  thus  circumflanced,  you  are  jufl  publifliing  a  vol- 
ume to  reflify  raiftakes,  and  to  fet  thefe  controverted  fubjeds 
in  a  clear  point  of  view.  You  certainly  would  do  well  to 
confult  the  Bible,  and  take  advice  of  the  Scriptures,  before 
you  proceed  any  farther.  Curfed  be  he  that  handleth  the 
word  of  God,  or  doeth  his  ivork,  deceitfully. 

Lajlly.  Another  confequence  is,  that  every  perfon  may 
confider  himfelf  to  be  again  at  full  liberty  to  read  my  Seven 
Sermons,  if  he  pleafe :  for  though  there  be  but  little  of  argU' 
ment  in  them,  yet  your  Examination  is  found  not  to  be  able 
to  difprove  that  little.  It  is,  therefore,  obvious  that  they 
poifefs  as  much  of  argument  as  they  ever  did,  together  with 
tliis  advantageous  circumftance,  that  they  have,  without 
receiving  material  injury,  fuftained  the  firft  public  general 
attack.  Nor  will  you,  or  any  of  your  denomination,  be 
ever  able  to  deftroy  the  immovable  hajis  on  which  the  prin- 
cipal arguments  in  my  Sermons  are  founded.  Their  foun- 
dation is  the  broad  bafis  of  revelation.    Would  you  maintain 


Let.  XII.]      Letters  to  Rev,  Mr.  Aujlin,  93 

your  ground,  in  this  day  of  light,  liberty,  and  inquiry,  it  would 
probably  be  your  wifdom,  to  be  as  totally  filent,  as  to  any 
mention  of  your  errors,  as  the  Scriptures  are  with  relation 
to  any  defence  of  them. 

With  grief  for  your  errors, 
with  aifedlion  for  your  perfon, 

with  efteem  for  your  general  charafler, 
and  defires  for  your  fpeedy  reformation, 
I  am,  dear  Sir,  fmcerely  yours, 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 


-■'W  "i"!!!!^ 


jd  fciib  words  for  Rev.  Samuel  Worcester^ 
of  Salem, 


THE  author  of  the  forejijoing  Letters  does  mofl  fincerely  regret,  that 
any  pcrfonal  and  public  abufe  and  obloquy  fliould  be  rcforttJ  to  by 
Mr  Worcefter,  of  Salem,  in  defence  of  the  prefent  very  intcrofting  and 
folemn  controverfy.  He  alfo  fincerely  regrets,  that  the  fame  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter Ihou'd  publifh  to  the  world  feveral  unfounded  afTertions,  or  great 
niifreprefentations,  that  he  migiit  in  this  way  fupport  his  unftable  caufe. 
Truth  wants  no  fuch  auxiliaries,  and  error  cannot  be  always  fupported 
by  theiu 

The  following  are  conCdered  to  be  unfounded  afTertions,  or  great  n'.lf- 
reprefen  tat  ions 

I.  Says  Mr.  Worcefter,*  "  Even  the  author  of  Seven  Sern-.ons,  ob  tht 
mode  and  fuhjeds  of  bsptifm,.  deftrcs  to  thank  Gcd  that  he  knows  thd 
Creek  as  ivell  a-  a;:y  !JtanJ" 

a.  The  fame  Mr.  Worceiler  informs  the  public,f  that  the  "  author  of 
Letters  to  Mr.  .-.nderfun,  hus  n-)t  only  grjfulfoujly  corned,  and  contempluoujly 
bcftowed  upon  us  a  new  name,  but  becaufe  he  ffiund  that  John,  the  har- 
binger of  Chrift,  is  called  a  Buptiil,  very  'hrewdly  concludes  thofe  who 
were  !>apLizcd  by  J'^hn  v/ere  ah'o  Bapti;ls,  &c. ;  but  upon  being  afkcd, 
by  the  author  of  thefe  difcourfes,  whether  the  term  Bi.ptifl  was  applied  to 
Jehn  ii.  the  fame  IcnJe  in  which  it  is  :!ow  applied  to  thofe  who  are  called 
£aptil1s,  he  confeJfcJ  the  truth,  ai^d  fall  it  ivas  tint" 

3.  l"he  fame  lAr.  Worcefter  telis  us,  page  62,  that  "  the  fame  reafon- 
ing,  if  reafoninr  it  mvfl  be  called,  by  which  it  was  fuppofed  to  be  proved 
that  the  Waldcnfes,  WicUliiT.tes,  Huflites,  and  other  witncffcs  for  the  truth 
in  the  dark  ages,  were  Antipsedobaptifts,  would  equally  prove  that  the 
Tabernacle  cliurch  are  Antip.-cdobaptifts.  This  the  writer  of  the  Minia- 
ture Hiftory  has  him/elf  been  brought  to  aclnotvledye." 

Had  thffe  unfounded  affertions,  or  great  mifreprcfentations,  of  Mr. 
Worceiler's,  affefted  merely  the  private  char^idler  and  feelings  of  him 
v\'ho)n  t!"iey  implicate,  he  might  have  left  them,  after  denying  their  cor- 
redneA,  to  the  future  confideration  of  Air.  WorccRer,  and  to  the  juJl 
cenfure  of  every  candid  writer  and  reader  of  theological  difputatico. 
But  when  a  public  teacher  of  religion  ihall  pradife  fuch  kind  of  manage- 
ment, to  prepoiTefs  and  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  his  hearers  and  readers 
againft.  tht  trir  h,  he  ought  to  exped;  fome  fuitable  ccrredion  This  the 
author  of  the  Miniature  Hiftory,  and  of  the  Letters  to  Mr,  Anderfon, 
espeds  to  endeavour, as  fcon  as  he  fhall  have  kifure.  In  the  mean  time, 
Mr.  Worcefter  is  called  upon  to  make  his  afTertions  good,  if  he  be  able  to  : 
he  is  defircd,  however,  to  do  it  in  fuch  a  manner,  that  the  public  may  not 
coufidcr  him  to  be  cont^tjaing  \^  ith  an  enemy,  nor  with  one  whom  he 
may  with  impunity  tre?.t  with  contempt. 

*   See  lis  Difcourfes,  page  65. 
+   Difcturfis,  page  66. 


19^1 

The  autlior  of  the  Miniature  Hiftory  takes  liberty  jufl  to  obferve,  that 
he  does  not  believe,  alfo  tliat  he  never  did  beli^sve,  and  that  he  never 
acknowledged,  that  the  famereafuninir  by  which  the  Waldenfes,  &c.  were 
proved  to  be  Antif  aedobaptills,  woui(i  prove  the  Tabernacle  church  in 
Salem  to  be  fo:  nor  did  he  ever  make  any  fimilar  concefllon,  but  upon 
fuppofition  that  this  propofition  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  was  correct — Tbat 
the  Tabernacle  church  held  to  the  fame  great  and  leading  maxim  ivith  the 
tValdenfes,  &c  ;  which  the  author  confidered,  and  ftili  conliders,  to  he 
Mr.  Worcefler's  miftake. 

This  maxim  of  the  Waldenfes,  &c.  is,  "  That  the  kingdom  of  Chrifl,  or 
the  viftbU  church,  he  had  ejlablifhed  upon  earth,  -was  an  affemhly  of  true  and 
real  faints,  aiid  ought  therefore,  to  he  inaccejpble  to  the  ivicied  and  unrighteous j 
and  alfo  exempt  from  all  thtfe  inflitutions  -which  human  prudence  fuggeffs,  t» 
eppofe  the  progref  <,f  iniquity,  or  to  corre£i  and  reform  iranfgr<ffors." 

Let  Mr.  Woi  cefter  ihow,  if  he  can,  that  the  Tabernacle  church  adopt 
this  maxim,  not  in  part,  but  in  tvhole,  and  that  their  praAice  does,  in 
fa(5t,  c(]r=efpond  with  it,  and  that  thoroughly;  then  fliall  it  be  conceded 
to  him,  tbat,  fo  far  as  the  argument  depends  on  this  great  leading  maxim, 
the  fame  reafoning  which  proves  the  Wald-mfes,  &c.  to  be  Antipsedo- 
baptifts,  will  prove  the  Tabern.icle  church  to  be  fo 

TJie  author  of  Letters  to  Mr.  Anderfon  alfo  takes  liberty  to  obferve, 
that  his  fentiment  of  John's  being  called  the  Bnptifl;  is;  that  he  was  thus 
called  bccaufe  he  baptized,  and  that  every  Baptifl  minilter  is  called  a  Bap- 
tifb  for  the  fame  identical  reafcn  for  which  John  ■was  thus  called ;  and 
that  the  brethren  among  the  Baptifts  are  thus  called,  not  becaufc  they 
-aie  baptizers,  but  becaufe  they  are  baptized. 

The  author  of  the  Seven  Sermons,  Miniature  Hiftory,  &c.  never  ut- 
tered or  publilhed  the  expreflion  in  the  firft  great  mifreprefentation  of 
A;r.  Worcefter,*  nor  made  concefTions  or  acknowledgments  to  hi  n,  but 
in  agreement  with  the  above  ftatement.  Mr.  Worcefter  will  account  to 
himfclf,  to  his  people,  and  to  the  public,  for  his  affertions,  in  the  beil 
manner  he  can. 

One  acknowledgment  I  moll  frankly  make  to  Mr,  Worcefter  :  it  !■ 
this — That  (  am  really  pained  that  he  hath  compelled  me  thus  publickly 
to  contradidt  his  public  ftatcments.  The  fault  is  his,  and  the  damage  he 
will  luftain. 

The  AUTHOR. 
Sedgiiiici,  December  25j  I^OJ- 

*  /  may,  ivhtjt  urged  by  blind  gainfayei  s,  have  faid  fomething  to  the  fol- 
Joiving  purport — That  I  underfloud  the  Gre.-k  ivords  "which  relate  to  the  ordi' 
nJnce  of  b  apt  if /it,  as  luell  as  do  the  oppofers  ;  but  never  did  I  fay,  er  intention'' 
allyfo  much  as  intimate,  Vihat  Mr.  IVercifter  mofl  ungeiieroujl^  and  manif^lA 
purges  to  my  accouut. 


For  Sale  at  Manning  &  Loring's  Book/lore^ 
No.  2,  Cornhilly  Bo/ion^ 

The  Second  Edition  of  .SEVEN  SERMONS 

•n  the  Mode  and  Subjeas  of  BAPTISM. 

By  DANIEL  MERRILL,  a.  m. 

[^Prke  37f  tints. 


Alfoi  by  the  fame  Author^ 

OPEN  COMMUNION  with  all  who  keep  the 

Ordinances  as  Christ  delivered  them  to  the  Saints. — Eight 
Letters  to  Rufus  Anderson,  A.  M. 

\Price  aj  cents. 


Alfo, 

A  VINDICATION  of  the  DISTINGUISHING 

SENTIMENTS  of  the  BAPTISTS,  againft  the  Writings 
of  Meifrs.  Cowles,  Miller,  and  Edwards. 

By  ELISHA  ANDREWS,  a.  m. 

[Pr/V*   50  (Ctits. 


A/fo, 
BUNYAN's  PILGRIM'S  PROGRESS,  with 

Original  Notes,  Preface,  Life  of  the  Author,  and  copioiis 
Index  to  the  whole,  by  THOMAS  SCOTT,  Chaplain  to 
the  Lock  Hofpital,  and  Author  of  Original  Notes  and  Prac- 
tical Obfervations  on  the  Scriptures.  (With  four  copper- 
plates. ) 

"  It  would  not,  perhaps,  be  difficult  to  prove,  that  the  Pilgrim's  Pro- 
grefs  is  as  really  an  original  produiSion  of  vigorous  native  genius,  as  any 
of  thofe  works,  in  profe  or  vcrfc,  which  have  excited  the  admiration  of 
mankind,  through  fuccedive  ages  and  in  different  nations ;  and  it  will 
probably  be  read  with  delight  and  advantage  till  the  confummation  of 
ail  things." 

"  'Twere  well  with  moft  if  books,  that  could  engage 

jt  Their  childhood,  pleas'd  them  at  a  riper  age; 

"  The  man  approving  what  had  charm'd  the  boy, 

"  Would  die  at  laft  in  comfort,  peace,  and  joy." 

The  Notes  add  greatly  to  the  value  of  this  edition,  and  are  exceedingly 
interefting  to  the  intelligent  re'.der ;  affording  a  happy  guide  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  author  in  his  allegory.  The  Rev.  Mr.  .Scott  is  a  man  of 
known  piety,  and  of  critical  knowledge  in  theological  literature.  Thft 
"vork  coatains  nearly  400  pages,  the  Mote»  occupy  about  one-third. 

[Friee  I  d»ll.  aj  tenUi 


•I 


THE 

SECOND  EXPOSITION 


OF 


Some  of  the  falfe  Arguments,  Miftakes,  and 
Errors 


REF.  SAMUEL  AUSTIN. 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  BENEFIT  OF  THE  PUBLIC, 


BY  DANIEL  MERRILL, 

PASTOR  OF   THE  CHURCH   OF   CHRIST  IN   SEDGWIC«> 

0»i  '■'      "■■' 


And  in  the  days  of  thefe  kings  fiiall  the  God  of  hsavcH  fetup  a  king- 
dom, which  (hall  never  be  deftroyetl :  and  the  kingdom  fhall  not  lie 
left  to  other  people,  but  it  (hall  break  in  pieces  and  confume  all  thefc 
kingdoms,  and  it  fliall  ftand  forever.  Oaniel- 

Another  parable  fpake  he  unto  them,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like 
unto  leaven,  which  a  woman  took  and  hid  in  tliree  meafures  of  meal, 
till  the  whole  was  leavened,  "3^/"^  Chr'tft. 

Buy  the  trutbt  and  fell  it  not.  Solomon, 


BOSTON: 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  Ss*  Loring,  N**-  2,  Cornhill, 

1807, 


/ 


District  op  Massacbusstts,  to  wit : 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED, That  on  the  twenty-futh  day  of  June,  in  the 
thirty-firft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, Manning  ts*  Loring,  of  the  faid  diftri(ft,  have  depofited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  -wit : — "  The  Second  Evpofition  of  fome  of 
the  falfe  Arguments,  Mifkakes,  and  Errors  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Auflin. 
Publifhed  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Public.  By  Daniel  Merrill,  Pallor 
of  the  Church  of  Chrifl  in  Sedgwick." 

In  conformity  to  the  A61  of  the  Congr^fs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  A<5t  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
fuch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  alfo  to  an  A(5t, 
entitled,  "  An  A 61  fupplementary  to  an  A<ft,  entitled.  An  A61  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and 
books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the  time* 
therein  mentioned ;  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of 
defigning,  engraving,  a^Dd  etching  hillorical  and  other  prints." 

WILLIAM  S.  SHAW,  Ckrk  of  the  Dipia  of  Majjachujettu 


To  the  Reader. 


BEAR    FRIEND, 


1  Q  the  carelefs  finner^  and  to  the  ind'oUnt  and 
erroneous  faulty  I  appear  a  fool ,-  and  the  prefent  controverfy^ 
efpecially  on  my  fidey  to  he  needlefs  and  without  profit.  But 
it  will  be  foon  known,  that  more  is  dtpending  on  it  than  are 
all  the  treafures  of  the  Indies^  or  than  the  plcafures  of  time. 
It  has  heen  Satati! s  fubtiliy^  from  the  beginning,  to  lead  men 
from  God's  injlitiitiom.  A  compliance  ivith  this  fubtilty  was 
tl>e  fin  of  our  frf  parents,  and  ruined  our  race.  A  compli- 
ance ivith  this  provoked  God  to  cafl  the  ten  tribes  as  out  of 
his  fights  A  neglect  of  the  Lord^s  ordinances  carried  the 
Jews  itUo  the  Babylomfh-  captivity  for  feventy  years.  For 
the  fame  prof  anatisi:  of  the  Lord^s  ordinances,  they  are  now 
a  taufity  a  bye-word,  and  a  curfe,  among  all  nations.  A 
compliance  with  the  fame  device  of  Satan  produced  Antichrifly 
and  Jlill  upholds  him. 

The  devil  is  the  fame  deceiver  noxu  that  he  was  nearly  fix 
thoifand  years  ago.  He  then  reprefented  fin  as  a  pleafant 
thing,  and  the  way  to  luifdotn.  fufl  fo  noiv.  Thofe,  wl:fO 
in  any  and  every  age  have  confidered  the  pofttive  injlitutions 
of  the  Lord  to  be  of  very  f acred  importance,  have  been  called 
by  perhaps  every  name  luhich  the  malice  of  Satan  could  invent. 
Thefe  ill  names  and  reproaches  are  fill  the  lot  offuch  as  keep 
the  ordinances  as  Chrifl  delivered  them.  What  falfehoods 
have  been  wickedly  circulated  againjl  the  Author  of  thefe 
pages  !  Hoiu  many^  from  whom  ive  might  have  expected 
better  things,  have  f aid.  Report ^  and  ive  will  report  it  ! 

Kind  reader,  I  know  but  one  thing  ivhich  the  public  can 
lay  to  my  charge,  and  it  is  this  : — I  am  Jealous  for  the  honour 
of  Jfus,  the  King  of  the  Gentiles  as  ivell  as  jews.  I  plead 
for  obedience  to  his  injlitutions  and  ordinances.  I  plead  againfl 
thofe  nvho  would  and  do  corrupt  theni.  I  plead  againjl  the 
priefl  and  people  ivho  difobey  my  King.     I  plead  with  argu- 


TO    THE    READER. 


merits  fa  plaWy  that  a  child  may  underjiand.  I  plead  the 
plain  word,  the  open  ^uordy  the  unaduitetated  word  of 
Gody  as  my  defence.  I  have  injured  no  man  in  this  mattery 
ctherwife  than  I  have  charged  guilt  upon  the  corrupters  of 
God's  word.  My  opponents  defpife  me.  but  the  Lord  wilj 
rebuke  them.  It  is  his  caufe  which  I  dtfend.  He  will  one 
day  plead  my  caufe,  and  put  my  enemies  to  fhame.  I  have^ 
and  do  ^fill,  willingly  bear  rtproach  for  Jefus*  fake.  I 
heartily  commiferate  the  cafe  of  thofe  who  are  on  the  oppcftte 
fide.      I  fee  their  end  coming  :  it  may  not  be  far  off. 

Reader,  IfracVs  defpiftng  Elijah  did  notfave  them  ;  Ju' 
dah's  ftting  Jeremiah  at  nought  did  not  five  them  ;  nor  will 
it  avail  the  oppofers  tofet  at  nought  the  baptized  church,  with 
their  leaders. 

Reader,  if  I  be  a  real  Chriflian,  I  am  a  real  Baptijl,  attd^ 
the  Lord  hath  made  me  both.  If  I  be  a  Chrijiian,  then  in 
the  fincerity  of  my  heart,  I  befeech  thee  to  inquire  for  the 
order  of  ChrifYs  houfe,  as  for  thy  life,  for  it  is  for  thy  life  ; 
for  others  will  foon  receive  of  the  plagues  of  Antichriji. 
When  you  fhall  fee,  in  the  follonving  pages,  with  what  falfe 
arguments,  mifiakes,  and  errors,  Mr.  A.  hath  laboured  to 
defend  his  fide,  I  pray  thee  afk  thyfelf  this  quefion, — Can 
the  caufe  of  truth  thus  labour,  and  need  fuch  means  of  defence^ 
in  the  hands  of  an  able  difputant  ?  The  rcafon  why  Mr.  A. 
hath  fo  committed  himfelf  is  trot  becaufe  he  is  unable  to  argue 
well  in  a  good  caufe,  but  on  account  of  his  having  undertaken 
to  defend  a  bad  one. 

I  now  commit  the  matter  to  God  and  to  the  reader'' s  be/i 
judgment,  praying  the  Father  of  Lights  to  fend  forth  light 
and  truth i  and  fpeedily  fubdue  the  ivorld  unto  himfelf 

With  good  will  to  all  men, 

I  am  the  readers  friend, 

THE  AUTHOR, 

SeOCWICK,  AVGUST  zi,  x$o6. 


Second  Expofition,  ^c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  io  Jlubborn  fa6ls,  and  to 
common  fenfe* 


TO  ALL  WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN. 
MEN,   BRETHREN,  AND  FATHERS, 

JVlY  public  writings  are  ftill  attended  with  a 
feries  of  pain  and  pleafure.  It  is  painful  to  me  to  contra- 
difl  men  of  education,  talents,  and  refpedlability,  and  to  be 
con  '.idided  by  them,  as  has  been  the  cafe,  and  probably 
will  be  for  the  prefent.  But  it  is  pkafing,  that  God,  v/ho 
feparated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  hath  called  me,  not 
only  to  the  knowledge  of  his  word  generally,  but  to  knov; 
the  order  of  his  houfe,  and  to  defend  it. 

I  am  very  little  difappointed  at  the  reception  which  mr 
writings  receive  :  for  when  God  taught  me  to  difcover  the 
blindnefs  and  errors  in  which  I  and  my  brethren  were,  I 
faw  diredly  that  my  repentance  and  reformation  would 
bring  an  army  of  oppofers :  for  the  moment  in  which  I 
condemned  myfelf,  1  condemned  them  ;  and  when  I  for- 
fook  my  evil  praftices,  I  praftically  condemned  thofe  who 
continued  in  them. 

My  Lord  and  Mafter  was  called  Beelzebub,  and  his  firft 
apoftles  were  faid  to  be  mad.  I  calculated  to  partake  of 
fome  of  the  fame  kind  of  ufage.  That  many  of  the  wicked 
oppofe  me,  is  not  ftrange  ;  that  hypocritical  fcribes  and 
phaiifees  oppofe  me,  is  no  caufe  of  wonder;  that  good 
men,  who  have  not  light  and  refolution  fufficient  to  re- 
nounce their  educational  prejudices,  fhould  oppofe  me,  is 
nothing  more  than  might  have  been  expeded,  nor  is  this 
different  from  what  was  expefted  ;  but  that  good  xn^n 
P 


6  Second  Expoftt'ion  of 

fhould  ufc  the  artillery  of  the  wicked,  and  defend  their 
errors  by  fophiflry,  and  1  might  almofl.  fay  by  deception, 
is  not  what  I  fo  fully  expeded  as  I  find  to  be  true.  Nor 
was  I  fully  apprifed,  that  good  men  would  treat  me  with 
all  that  contempt  with  which  the  men  of  Succoth  did  Gid- 
eon, and  Nabal  the  fervants  of  David.  But  I  find  fome 
are  difpofed  much  the  fame  way.  I  have  no  difpofition  to 
teach  them,  with  the  thorns  and  briars  of  the  wildernefs, 
nor  with  the  fvvord  of  fteel  :  but  I  truft;  in  the  God  of 
Ifraej,  that  the  day  is  not  far  oiF,  when  they  fhall  be  taught 
by  the  fword  of  die  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God  ;  and 
when  they  fnall  be  willing  to  hear,  and  fhall  treat  with  more 
refpeift  and  much  iefs  rodenefs,  fuch  as  would  inftrutfl  them. 

Mr.  Samuel  Auftin  I  confider  to  be  one  of  thefe  good 
men.  Hc  is  impatient  of  contradi<flion,  and  has  informed 
the  world  that  he  hath  clofed  his  public  correfpondence 
with  me  ;  yet  my  pen  mud  expofe  his  errors,  and  the  public 
mnft  hear  it.  At  ihe  fame  time,  I  pray  the  Lord  that  not 
a  fentence  may  efcape  my  pen,  which  Ihall  give  either  him 
or  his  brethren  need  iefs  pain.  It  is  alfo  my  defirc,  that  I 
may  never  withhold  a  truth  which  the  caufe  of  Chrift  ihall 
require  me  to  make  public.  It  is  truth,  plain  truth,  on 
which  I  depend,  for  ti^e  fupport  of  Chrifl's  caufe  ;  which  I 
hope  is  ray  caufe.  1  ihall  not  ridicule  Mr.  A.,  nor  fliall  I 
attempt  to  defpife  him,  or  fpare  him  out  of  pity  ;*  n®r  do 
I  allc  him  ever  to  fpare  me  again,  becaufe  he  fo  pities  my 
weaknefs  that  he  will  not  fully  expofe  ihe  nakcdnefs  of  the  latuL 
I  afk  no  favour,  in  this  way,  from  Mr.  A.,  nor  from  any 
other  man.  Let  truth  be  defended,  let  truth  be  thoroughly 
defended,  though  I  appear  a  fool. 

I  can  with  fome  degree  of  fmcerity  fay,  I  pity  Mr.  A.  j 
yet  I  pity  the  fuffering  caufe  of  truth  more.  It  is  my  fet- 
tled judgment,  that  he  thinkelh  himfelf  to  be  doing  God 
fervice,  in  his  oppoiltion  to  the  caufe  of  the  Son  of  God. 
It  will,  no  doubt,  wound  his  feelings,  when  I  lliall  prova 
him  c^uilty  of  lophillry,  and  miflakes,  and  mifieprcfenta- 
t.ions,  in  his  zealous  labours  for  the  caufe  of  error;  but  Ii 
mufl  confiJer  his  feelings  as  he  alfo  may  foon  confider 
them,  of  very  little  worth,  when  they  are  to  be  wounded 
or  truth  given  up.  ' 

I  Ihall  not  mention  every  miftake  and  trror  which  ard 
found  in  his  Letters ;  but  (hall  endeavour  to  give  fuch  an 
account  of  them  generally,  that  the  reader  may  not,  unlefs 

*  Sec  Mr  Aufiin's  Letters,  p.  20,  4,  j,  ! 


Mr.  Aifjiin's  Mijlahcs,  7 

he  loves  d&rknefs  rather  than  light,  be  ftunibled  in  them. 
It  might  not  be  neceHary  to  m;ike  any  reply,  were  it  not 
that  in  his  title  page  he  promiied  to  do  fomething,  and 
Ibme  of  his  readers  might  take  it  for  granted  that  he  had, 
imlel's  his  faife  arguments,  his  weak  arguments,  his  miftakcs, 
mifreprefentations,  &c,  were  expofed.  This  I  ihall  now  do. 
But  previoufly,  it  may  be  well  to  note,  that  Mr.  A.  is  on 
the  retreat;  for  he  concedes, 

1.  1'hat  fprinkling  is  not  baptifm  ;  or,  that  he  is  unable 
to  prove  it  to  be  fo.  His  words  are,  page  8,  "  Neither 
have  I  faid  that  fprinkling  is  baptifm.  fiere,  again,  is 
unfairnefs.  Where  is  quotation  ?"  I  will  furnifli  him  with 
more  than  one.  Says  Mr.  A.  in  his  fii  ft  pamphlet  to  me, 
page  46,  "Why  may  it  (external  baptifm)  not  as  well  be 
by  allufion  or  fprinkling  F"  Again,  page  loo,  fays  he,  "  We 
deny  that  immerfion  is  any  niore  baptifm  tVi-niJirinkUng  or 
pouring.''  My  obfervation  upon  this  is,  When  a  good  man 
liath  repeatedly  advocated  a  certain  tenet,  and  afterwards, 
when  charged  with  it,  denies  his  having  fpokea  in  its  fa- 
vour, he  mufthave  forgotten  it;  and  if  he  be  honeft,  he 
mult  be  difpofed  to  relinc[U!lh  it,  when  he  charges  his  op- 
ponent with  unfairnefs  for  placing  it  to  his  account. 

2.  He  concedes,  that  pssdobaptifm  hath  no  m.artyrs  to 
witnefs  for  it.  Page  15,  he  fays,  "  By  confeffors,  you 
mean  fuch  as  have  fufFered  martyrdom  for  tiie  dodtrine  of 
pasdobaptifm.  I  never  pretended  we  had  any.  What  the 
rcafons  are  that  we  have  none,  I  may  not  be  able  to  aflign." 
The  reafons  are  very  plain.  Piedobaptifm  was  appointed 
by  men,  not  by  the  Lord  ;  and  it  was  appointed  for  men, 
not  for  the  Lord  ;  for  worldly,  ftiperftiuous  men  too,  and 
for  fn-erftitious  purpofes.  Thefe  are  rcafons  enough  why 
God  iiever  fuffered  any  of  his  friends  to  die  in  the  defence 
of  it.     - 

The  public  ilrall  now  be  pr-efented  with  a  few  famples  of 
Mr.  A.'s  falfe  argumentations  or  fophifms. 

I.  S:iys  he,  pages  10,  11,  "  Pder,  influenced  by  his 
carnal  prejudices,  thought  he  irruft  by  no  means  come  unto 
one  of  another  nation,  because  they  were  not  of  the  cii'- 
cumcifion  ;  but  it  was  told  him.  What  God  hath  cleanfed 
that  call  not  thou  common,  'ihe  char-acter  of  Cornelius, 
if  we  are  to  be  governed  by  the  deciiion  of  God,  was  a  full 
warrant  for  Peter  to  hold  communion  with  him  ;  and  it 
would  feem,  though  he  had  this  ground  only  for  it,  he  hav- 
ing not  yet  been  baptized,  had  he  rcfufed  ho  would  have 
wi:hllood  God :    for  he  fays,    '  Forafmuch  then,    as   God 


8  Second  Expofttion  of 

gave  them  die  like  gift  that  he  did  unto  us,  what  was  I 
that  1  could  withthmd  God.'  So  it  is  apprehended,  that 
the  allowed  fad^,  that  God  hath  cleanfed  this  multitude  of 
pious  perfons  (jull  mentioned)  an.',  fealed  them  as  his,  with 
the  like  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  which  he  hath  bedewed  on 
you,  obliges  you  not  to  treat  them  as  common  or  unclean." 
Mr.  A.'s  argument,  in  plain  Englifh,  is  this : — Peter 
would  have  withftood  God,  had  he  not  have  had  commu- 
nion wirh  the  devout  Cornelius,  who  had  received  the  Holy 
Ghoft  ;  and  had  he  not  baptized  him,  feeing  he  received 
the  word  gladly,  and  was  a  qualified  fubjecft  for  the  ordi- 
nance. I'herefore,  and  what  ?  This,  The  Bapuf.s  ivUhJland 
God,  by  y^fiijing  to  commune  at  the  IjOrd^s  talk  ivhh  thofc  ivho 
are  not  baptized.  This  is  one  of  the  firO:  rate  of  fophifms. 
Peter  would  liave  withftcod  God,  had  iie  refufed  to  have 
baptized  believing  Cornelius  ;  therefore,  the  baptized  church 
withRand  God,  bccaufe  they  refufe  to  commune  with  un- 
baptized  perfons.  Peter's  comm.iliion  and  orders  were  to 
baptize  thofe  who  believed,  therefore  he  would  have  with- 
ftood  God  had  he  refufed.  The  Baptifts  have  no  commif- 
fion,  order,  or  liberty  from  God,  to  commune  at  the  Lord's 
table  with  any  till  they  are  baptized,  yet  they  "xithjland  God 
if  they  refufe.  Into  what  abfurdity  do  Mr.  A.'s  errors  drive 
him  !  But  fays  he,  '*  Pious  perfons  having  received  the  like 
gift  of  the  Holy  GhoR,  obliges  the  Baptifts  not  to  treat 
them  as  common  or  unclean."  Certainly,  and  we  do  not. 
We  fjieak  unto  them  the  good  word  of  the  Lord,  and  invite 
them  to  forfake  the  papiftical  errors  of  fprinkling  and  iiifant 
baptiim  ;  and  when  they,  Coinelius  like,  will  hear  whatfo- 
ever  the  Lord  faith  unto  them,  we  gladly  commune  with 
them  in  both  the  ordinances,  aind  in  God's  appointed  way 
too  ;  firil  in  baptifm,  then  in  the  fupper. 

2.  The  next  falfe  argument  or  fophifm  of  his  which  I 
(hall  mention,  is  the  ani'wer  t»  the  queftion  which  I  put  to 
him,- in  the  words  following  : — Suppofe  there  be  a  refor- 
mation at  this  prefent  time  in  Worceftcr,  where  you  refide. 
Suppofe  fifty  perfons  of  the  brighteft  talents  be  converted. 
Not  one  of  them  his  been  baptized,  or  even  fo  much  as 
iprinklcd.  I  providentially  ride  through  the  town  ne.ft 
week  ;  by  chance  I  meet  Mr.  A.  in  the  ilreet,  and  put  this 
queftion — Have  thofe  very  refpedable  chara(51ers,  who  have 
of  laie  been  hopefully  converted,  joined  the  church  (mean- 
ing the  vifible  church)  ?  The  fophiftry  is  in  his  anfwer, 
page  i\.  His  anfwer  is,  "Yes.  "What!  become  con- 
vened to  Chrift,  and  yet  not  join  his  kingdom  ?"     Here 


■    Mr,  Aujlin's   Mijia':a,  9 

he  telh  me  and  ihc  public  that  his  aufwer  is  yes ;  whereas, 
if  I  can  underiland  any  thing  by  what  he  fays,  he  has  giv^ea 
no  aufwer  to  the  queilion,  but  has  anfwered  another,  which 
I  put  not.  TJie  queftion  propofed  was,  Have  thefe  con- 
verted unbaptized  perfons  joined  the  church,  the  vlfible 
church  ?  Yes,  fiys  Mr.  A.  they  have  joined  Chriil's  king- 
dom. Yes ;  but  this  is  not  the  queilion.  The  queftion  is, 
Have  they  joined  the  vifible  church  of  Chrlft  ?  Yes,  fays 
he,  they  have  joined  his  kingdom.  If  I  comprehend  Mr. 
A.  this  is  iheer  fophiftry  and  evafion,  and  manifefts  that 
the  place  is  too  ftrait  for  him.  If  they  Jiave  joined  the 
vifible  church,  why  do  he  and  his  brethren  converfe  with 
them,  in  order  to  their  joining  ?  Have  Mr.  A.  and  his 
brethren  been  idling  with  all  the  perfons  whom  they  have 
profeffedly  admitted  into  the  vifible  church?  and  does  he 
fuppofe  that  his  brethren,  through  the  Chriftian  world, 
have  been  merely  playing  with  folemn  things,  when  they 
have  publickly  received  vifible  converts  into  the  vifible 
church  ?  Not  a  child  in  Worcefter,  of  ten  years  old,  but 
can  at  once  anfwer  the  queftion,  which  Mr.  A.  appears  un- 
willing to  folve.  Indeed,  it  is  a  difficult  one  for  him  :  for 
if  he  fay  no,  it  fpoils  his  argument  for  communion  with 
unbaptized  perfons  ;  if  he  fay  yes,  that  they  have  joined 
the  viftble  church,  then  he  is  contrary  from  all  men  of 
whom  I  have  ever  before  heard  or  read.  Befides,  he  would 
be  fubje^^  to  another  difficulty  ;  perhaps  not  one  in  ten 
thoufand,  if  one  in  the  world,  will  believe  him  :  even  chil- 
dren know  better.  Indeed,  the  time  fpol'en  of  by  the 
prophet  is  come,  when  children  fhould  rule  the  profeifed  ' 
people  of  God.  I  am  foiTy  to  fay  thus  of  Mr.  A.,  for  I 
believe  him  a  valuable  man  in  many  refpefls  ;  bat  his  good 
things  muft  not  fandion  his  bad  ones.  When  he  employs 
his  time  and  talents  to  defend  Antichrift's  ordinances  and 
church  order,  he  muft  be  expofed  and  rebuked  fliarply, 
tiiat  he  may  be  found  in  the  taith. 

3.  We  will  now  attend  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  fophifnis, 
by  which  he  overturns  his  whole  fcheme. 

His  fcheme  or  notion  is,  that  the  being  born  again,  and 
efpecially  its  being  known,  conftitutes  perfons  members  of 
the  vifible  church.  For,  page  14,  he  fays,  ♦'  What !  be- 
come converted  to  Chrift,  and  not  join  his  kingdom  ?" 
intending  the  vifible  church,  unlefs  he  meant  to  evade. 
But  now  we  Ihall  fee  him,  in  contradiction  tO'himfclf, 
plead  with  his  full  ftrength  againft  it  ;  or  otherwife,  he  is 
purpofely  keeping  the  fubjed  in  debate  out  oi  fight. 

B    2 


lo  Second  Expofiiion  of 

We  will  hear  what  he  fays.  In  page  ic?,  tf  his  firil 
Letters,  his  words  are,  "  Whatever  be  defigred  by  the 
kingJom  of  God,  and  \vhate\'er  is  to  be  uuderllood  here, 
by  being  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  bot)i  are  necef- 
fary,  as  pre-requKites  to  a  perfon's  e.icering  into  this  king- 
dom. 1'he  birth  goes  before  the  entrance."  To  this,  in 
my  Letters  to  him,  page  73,  my  anfwer  is.  If  you  will  be 
kind  enough  to  inform  the  public,  for  how  long  a  time  a 
perfou  mull  be  born  before  he  enters  into  the  world,  then 
they  will  poffeis  a  neceffary  datum  to  underftand  your  new 
dodrine,  that  the  birth  goes  before  the  entrance.  In  reply 
to  this,  fays  Mr.  A.  page  26,  "  Is  regeneration  then,  in  all 
cafes,  an  entrance  into  glory  ?'  Here  he  fhifts  the  fubjeft 
which  is  debating.  I  was  not  fpeaking  of  the  kingdom  of 
glory,  but  of  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift.  Here  he  takes 
for  granted  what  I  have  no  difpofition  to  deny  ;  and  then 
would  have  the  publ  c  believe,  what  he  is  unable  to  prove, 
that  the  being  born  of  water,  or  that  baptifm,  is  not  the 
entrance  into  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chriil.  He  takes  for 
granted,  tl:iat  regeneration  is  not,  in  all  cafes,  an  entrance 
into  glory.  Very  well ;  no  perfon  faid  it  was  :  but  his 
argument,  or  conciuiion,  is  what  I  diflike.  His  argument, 
in  Ihort,  is  this  ;  Regeneration  is  not  an  entrance  into  glo- 
ry ;  therefore,  baptifm  is  not  an  entrance  into  the  vifible 
church.  Such  an  argument  as  this,  proves  nothing  to  any 
man's  advantage  :  it  is  a  mere  fophifm. 

I  will  here,  that  every  thing  may  be  perfeftly  plain,  pre- 
fent  with  exactnefs  my  fentiments  on  this  fubjed. 

Firft,  Regeneration,  or  the  new  birth,  is  an  entrance  into 
the  fpiritual,  or  what  is  ufually  termed  tlie  invtfihh^  king- 
dom of  chrift. 

Secondly,  The  being  born  of  water,  or  baptifm,  is  an 
entrance,  or  the  entrance,  into  the  vifilk  kingdom  of  Chrift. 

I'hirdly,  Dying  in  Ghr'ijl  is  the  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
of  glory. 

Now,  it  is  the  entrance  into  this  fecond  kingdom,  the  vifi- 
ble kingdom  of  Chrift,  which  is  the  fubje<S  of  controverfy. 

We  ftiail  now  (how  that  Mr.  A.  has  changed  the  fub- 
je<ft,  or  otherwiie  is  chargeable  with  felf-contradi*5tion  ;  he 
will  acknowledge  which  he  pleafes.  If  he  have  changed 
the  fubje*^,  and  proved  what  is  not  controverted,  and  then 
taken  for  granted  the  fubjeft  of  debate,  he  is  chargeable 
with  fophiftry,  or  falfe  and  difmgenuous  argumentation. 
If  he  have  not  changed  the  fubjeft,  but  intends  the  vifible 
kingdom  e»f  Chrift,  then  he  is  guilty  of  felf-contradi<ftion, 


Mr.  A  liftings  Mijlakes.  ii 

as  will  now  appear.  Page  26,  he  fays,  the  words  of  Chritl 
are,  *  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Now,  fays  he, 
"  Let  us  apply  this  mode  of  expreffion  to  a  familiar  cafe. 
King  Ahafuerus  makes  a  banquet  for  queen  Efther,  and 
invites  Haman.  He  orders  Haman  to  be  told,  that  except 
he  is  habited  in  white,  he  cannot  enter  in  to  the  banquet. 
Haman  puts  on  white  clothing  accordingly.  Now,  fays 
Mr.  A.,  is  Haman's  clothing  himfelf  in  white,  before  he 
enters  in  to  the  banquet,  preparatory  to  it,  01  the  entrance 
itfelf  ?" 

By  the  illuftration  in  this  his  familiar  cafe,  he  tells  us,  if 
there  be  any  meaning  in  it,  that  to  be  born  again,  or  con- 
verted to  Chrift,  is  not  the  entrance  into  the  vifible  king- 
dom of  Chrift,  but  preparatory  to  it.  But  in  page  14,  in 
anfwer  to  a  difficult  queftion  which  I  propofed  to  him,  he 
told  us  that  it  is  the  entrance  ;  not  only  fo,  but  he  tells  us 
that  he  hath  the  apoftles  with  him  in  the  matter.  I  pre- 
fume  he  will  not  teil  us  that  the  apoftles  are  with  him  on 
both  fides  of  the  contradiOion.  I  do  not  fo  much  blame 
Mr.  A.  for  contradiding  himfelf,  as  I  do  for  his  continuing 
to  travel  in  that  crocked  path,  in  which  no  man  can  go 
ftraight. 

The  above  may  ferve  as  famples  of  Mi%  A.'s  fophifms» 
or  falfe  arguments.  I  agree  to  prefent  more  of  them,  and 
to  fhow  that  his  reply  to  my  Letters  is  little  elfe  but  one 
continued  fophifm,  (hould  the  public  good  demand  it,  and 
the  Lord  give  me  opportunity. 

The  public  fhall  now  be  prefented  with  a  few  of  his 
weak  arguments,  and  he  appears  to  have  none  but  of  this 
defciiption. 

I.  The  firft  weak  argument  which  I  fhall  mention,  is  in 
pa?e  32  ;  and  it  is  given  the  public  in  order* to  deftroy  the 
natural  argument  for  immerfion  which  we  have  in  Mark 
i.  5.  from  the  force  of  the  word  m.  The  text  is  this,  ♦  And 
there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of 
Jerufalem,  and  were  all  Ixipti/.ed  of  him  in  the  river  of 
Jordan.'  The  common  fenfe  of  this  text  is,  that  they  were 
immerfed,  or  buried  in  baptifm.  But  to  fet  this  natural 
and  fcriptural  argument  afide,  Mr.  A.  prefects  the  public 
with  the  following  argument.  ^  I  have  (fays  he)  a  Bible 
pretty  full  of  plates  ;  in  one  of  tbem  referring  to  this  tranf- 
aftion,  the  Baptift  and  the  Saviour  are  reprefented  as  ftand- 
ing  in  the  margin  of  the  ftream,  to  a  depth  a  little  above 
their-  ankles,  and  John  is  pouring  water  from  his  hand  on 


I  2  Second  Expfjitlon  of 

the  head  of  the  Saviour."  H;id  Mr.  A.  have  added,  that 
tliis  plate  of  his  was  inferted  in  his  Bible  by  the  diretStion 
of  the  pope,  on  purpofe  to  deceive  thofe  who  regard  pic-i 
tares  more  than  they  do  words,  very  ft-vv-  of  his  readers 
would  probably  have  been  deceived  by  it.  , 

2.  -  Another  of  Mr.  A.'s  weak  arguments  is  found  in 
page  13  ;  it  is  againft  what  is  called  clofe  communion,  and 
in  the  words  following  : — "  O  thou  fpirit  of  Brainerd,  refl- 
ing  in  the  bofom  of  thy  much-beloved  Jefus,  doft  thou  wit- 
nefs  the  fentence  which  has  been  pafied  upon  thee  by  one 
of  thy  fellow  difciples  in  this  world  ?  Doft  thou  hear  what 
is  fiiid  of  thee  among  men,  that  when  with  thern,  even 
when  thou  didft  drain  the  energies  of  thy  nature  in  impor- 
tunate prayer,  and  in  incelTant  labours  for  the  converfion 
of  poor  heathens,  thou  waft  without,  vi'here  are  dogs,  and 
forccrers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers?" 

What  a  pity  Mr.  A.  had  not  have  told  us  one  thing 
more,  and  have  proved  it  to  us,  that  the  amiable  and  pious 
David  Brainerd  was  a  perfecfV  man,  and  could  not  err  ; 
then  his  argument  would  have  had  force,  and  we  fliould 
have  concluded  that  he  walked  in  all  the  ftatutcs  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Lord  blamelefs ;  tlien  to  have  known  his 
praflicc  would  have  been  the  fame  as  to  have  known  the 
word  of  God  and  our  duty.  Till  Mr.  A.  ihall  prove  this 
much  needed  point,  his  argument  muft  ftand  for  a  tveak 
one  ;  for  it  is  nothing  to  the  prefent  buftnefs  to  know  what 
Mr.  Brainerd  did  or  did  not,  as  to  divine  inftitutioris,  unlefs 
it  be  firft  proved  that  he  could  not  err. 

3.  But  Mr.  A.  has  another  argument,  page  21,  which 
beggars  both  thefe ;  it  is  upon  the  fame  fubjeft  with  the 
preceding  argument,  againft  clofe  communion,  or  againft 
my  arguments  for  it,  and  to  deftroy  them  all  at  one  ftroke. ' 
His  words  are,  "  About  a  year  ago,  I  was  at  the  houfe  of 
a  minifter  in  this  county,  and  the  converfation  turning 
upon  the  excedlve  vociferation  wliich  fome  men  pradtife  in 
prayer,  the  lady  of  the  houfe  obferved,  that  a  fhort  time 
before  a  Baptift  minifter  called  upon  them,  and  received 
hofpitality  for  the  night.  According  to  the  orders  of  the 
houl'e,  the  minifter  being  abfent,  he  was  requefted  to  lead 
the  family  in  prayer.  He  did  fo ;  but  it  was  with  fuch  a 
ftraining  of  the  voice  as  fairly  ftunned  the  family,  and 
fpoiled  their  devotions.  Having  fat  a  little  while  after  the 
conclufion  of  the  prayer,  the  lady  took  the  liberty  to  afk 
him,  Why,  Sir,  do  you  halloa  fo  in  prayer  ?  Do  you  im- 
agine the  Divine  Being  is  a  great  way  off  ?    He  replied, 


Mr.  AuftirCs  Mi/iakes,  13 

that  he  had  got  into  the  habit,  and  had  not,  indeed,  much 
to  fay  for  it ;  but,  in  fa^fl,  it  was  every  thing  to  him,  for  if 
he  did  not  pray  in  that  founding  manner,  his  people  would 
not  think  it  was  praying  at  all." 

This  is,  I  confefs,  a  fingular  argament  ;  but  how  it 
ftrikes  againft  clofe  communion,  I  have  not  ingenuity  fuffi- 
cient  to  difcover ;  for  furely  this  Baptii^  minifler  was  for 
open  communion,  vvhilft  the  good  lady  and  her  family  op- 
pofed  it.  Why  Mr.  A.  fhould  teU  fjch  a  foohfli  and  im- 
probable flory  as  this,  is  doubtlefs  beft  known  to  himfelf. 
However,  1  will  venture  to  expofe  one  of  his  reafons,  and 
it  is  this, — To  gratify  not  a  very  good  difpofition,  in  ridi- 
culing the  Baptifts.  Yet,  as  ridiculous  as  they  are,  he 
confeiies  his  principal  objection  againil  them  is,  their  refus- 
ing to  commune  with  him  in  the  fecond  gofpel  ordinance, 
whild  he  rejeds  the  iirft.  This  reafon  is  not  given  in  his 
identical  words,  but  I  venture  to  propofe  it  to  the  public, 
as  being  fupported  as  his  by  facts  and  common  fenfe. 

We  Ihall  now  turn  our  attention  to  a  few  of  Mr.  A.'s 
miftakes ;  by  thefe,  as  well  as  by  his  fophiftry  and  weak 
arguments,  we  may  judge  of  the  papiftical  errors  which  he 
hath  undertaken  to  defend.  I  do  not  fay,  that  by  the  mis- 
takes we  may  judge  of  the  man,  for  fhould  M'e,  I  apprehend 
we  Ihould  do  him  great  injuftice,  for  the  man  is  honoura- 
ble ;  but  his  caufe  and  errors,  which  are  now  finking,  are 
deteftable,  and  his  defence  of  them  miferable.  To  be  fure, 
the  man  liimfeif  appears  to  difadvantage,  whilfl  defending 
fo  bad  a  caufe  ;  and  the  many  miftakes  which  he  is  obliged 
to  make,  whilu  labouring  to  defend  fo  crooked  a  fide,  mud 
excite  fome  unfavourable  fentiments  in  thofe  to  whom  he 
x^  unknown.  But  if  he  fulFer  a  little,  better  fo  than  to  have 
his  errors  pafs  without  corredion  ;  indeed,  dcftrudion  is 
the  deferved  portion  of  his  errors :  we  muil  therefore  op- 
pofe  inme  of  his  millakes. 

I.  The  firft  millake  which  I  fhall  mention,  is  in  his 
reply  to  the  following  requell:,  which  I  made  in  the  17th 
page  of  my  Letters  to  him,  and  in  thefe  words  : — Should 
you  write  again,  pleafe  to  inform  me  by  what  authority 
you  contradiv^  the  tranllators  of  the  Bible,  and  injure  the 
fenfe  of  this  text,  (Ads  xvi.  34.)  by  telling  us,  that  the 
jailor  rejoiced  dcmcftically  ?  His  reply  is,  page  6,  "  Is  this 
Chriftian  treatment,  to  charge  me  with  contradiding  the 
tfanilators  ?  I  have  not  done  it."  To  fettle  this  matter,  I 
will  prefent  the  reader  with  the  words  in  (jueftion,  both  as 
given  us  by  the  tranflatois  and  by  Mr.  A. 


14  Second  Expofiiion  of  • 

Traiifl.itors  far,  "  He  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  wilh 
all  his  houfe." 

Mr.  A.  fays,  page  Sy,  the  proper  rendering  is,  "  He, 
having  believed  in  God,  rejoiced  with  all  his  hoiife,  or 
domeltically." 

Here,  the  tranflators  fay  one  thln^,  Mr.  A.  fays  the  proper 
rendering  is  another.  The  reader  will  judge  whether  Mr.  A. 
does  not  cpntradifl:  them  ;  and  if  he  does,  this  is  one  miflahe. 
But  Mr.  A.  has  found  a  new  turn  to  the  original  Greek 
participle  for  believing.  In  his  former  Letters,  he  told  me 
it  was  in  the  fmgular  number  ;  in  my  Reply  I  obfcrved, 
every  Englilh  reader,  who  is  acquainted  with  the  conftruc- 
tion  of  language,  knows  it  is  the  fame  in  our  common 
Bibles  ;  bat  now  he  has  difcovered  it  to  be  in  the  perfc«5t 
tenfe,  therefore,  and  what  ?  therefore,  fays  he,  it  ferves  to 
refcne  the  text  from  your  prefutnptuovs  comments.  I  will 
give  the  public  the  text,  with  Mr.  A.'s  participle  rendered 
literally  in  the  perfect  time  ;  it  ftands  thus  : — He  (the 
jailor)  rejoiced,  having  believed  in  God  with  all  his  lioufe. 
I  afk,  what  advantage  is  Mr.  A.'s  new  difcovery  to  him  ? 
and  how  does  it  refcue  the  text  from  my  prcfumptuous 
comments  ?  All  my  comments  are,  that  the  Bible  fpeaks 
plain  Englifn,  and  is  to  be  taken  as  it  fays.  I  appeal  to 
the  world,  to  judge  whofe  comments  are  prefumptuous  ; 
mine,  for  taking  the  Bible  as  it  fays,  or  his,  for  changing 
both  words  and  (qii^q.  Bat  Mr.  A.  replies,  '*  Your  prc- 
fumptuous comments  are  cidculated  to  make  your  unlearn- 
ed readers  conclude,  that  the  jailor's  houfehoid  are  faid  to 
be  believers  as  well  as  himfelf."  My  anfwer  is,  the  tranf- 
lators of  the  Bible  tell  us  that  this  is  the  cafe,  and  is  the 
fenfe  of  the  original ;  and  Mr.  A.  fays  he  has  not  contra- 
dided  them.  Then  my  comments  arc  juft,  and  calculated 
to  make  my  unlearned  readers,  and  learned  too,  conclude 
juftly,  that  the  j;iilor  belveved  and  all  his  houfe. 

2.  I  will  now  prefent  the  reader  with  tliree  or  four  of 
Mr.  A.'s  millakes,  which  he  makes  in  writing  lefs  than  a 
page.     In  pages  8,  9,  he  quotes  three  of  my  definitions. 

Firll,  Immerflon  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  or  in 
the  name  of  tlie  Fatlier,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl,  is  the  oivly 
gofpel  baptifra. 

Secondly,  No  perfon  has  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  but 
upon  his  making,  profeffion  of  gofpel  faith. 

Thirdly,  No  perfon  is  a  merobcr  of  Chrift's  vifible  church 
till  he  is  baptized. 


Mr.  AuJl'irCs  Mi/lakes.  15 

To  thefe  Mr.  A.  replies  tlius : — "  Thefe  fentiments,  I 
faid,  and  you  are  not  afhamed  to  avow  the  confequence, 
go  to  exclude  from  ChrilFs  vifible  church  all  the  multitude 
of  eminently  pious  and  holy  perfons,  male  and  female,  who 
have  lived  and  died  the  fubjeds  of  bapttfm  by  fprinkling 
or  affufion  only,  and  merely  becaufe  they  have  not  been 
baptized  by  immerfion.  This  was  my  leading  objecflion, 
and  you  appear  to  totter  under  the  weight  of  it.  It  is 
ftrange  it  ^oes  not  cruJJi  ytfu  to  the  ground.  I  Jhould  think 
any  man,  who  had  made  fuch  a  conqueft  over  his  preju- 
dices, could  not  have  this  army  of  co-heirs  with  Chrift  of 
eternal  bleflednefs  pafs  before  his  imagination,  after  having 
treated  them  in  this  cavalier  way,  ivithoiit  finking  as  low  as 
the  mojl  feeling  felf-detefation  could  place  him.  You  fay,  *  If  it 
be  conclufive  again  ft  my  principles,  let  it  deftroy  them.' 
It  docs,  Sir,  dejlroy  them.  Let  it  hut  touch  them^  and  they  vanyh 
like  a  lullle." 

All  this  fays  Mr.  A.  We  will  attend  to  his  variety  of 
miftakes  in  this  quotation.  The  fir  ft  is,  That  I  appear  to 
totter  under  the  weight  of  his  objcdion.  His  objection  is, 
that  my  principles  go  to  exclude  from  Chriil's  ifble  church 
all  who  are  not  baptized,  or  immerfeJ,  in  the  name,  &c. 
This  is  his  objection,  under  which  he  fays  I  appear  to  totter. 
This  is  his  mtfiake.  For  the  avowing  of  this  truth,  fo  far 
from  making  me  totter.  It jqjnboldens  me  to  tell  him  another. 
That  all  who  hold  to  and  receive  the  human  rite  of  fprink- 
line,  for  the  Lord's  ordinance  of  baptifm,  are  within  the 
limits  of  Antichrift's  church,  and  have  fubmitted  to  his 
ordinance,  and  received  one  mark  of  the  Becjl.  Did  Mr.  A. 
know  his  duty  and  his  privilege,  he  would  come  out  from 
his  errors,  and  cfpecially  from  tins,  and  be  fe[nirate  ;  then' 
would  the  Lord  receive  him  into  his  vifible  church. 

But  Mr.  A.  adds,  "  Jt  is  ftrunge  my  objedion  does  not 
crufli  you  to  the  ground."  This  is  another  of  his  njiftakeb. 
For  it  is  not  ftrange  at  all ;  for  the  good  word  of  God 
fupports  me,  by  bearing  its  teftimony  in  favour  of  the  cor- 
redaefs  of  my  principles.  The  Lord  tells  us,  that  he  hath 
I  know  not  how  many  pious,  godly  perfons  within  the 
limits  of  Anticlirift  ;  befides,  he  points  out  the  time  in 
which  they  would  be  within  thefe  limits,  and  informs  us 
that  tliis  is  the  time.  See  Rev.  xvii.  xviii.  xix.  xx.  and 
particularly  chap,  xviii.  4.  where  he,  by  a  voice  as  froiii 
heaven,  calls  to  tliefe  perfons,  faying,  'Come  out  of  her, 
my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  fins,  and  that 
yc  receive  i>ot  of  her  plagues.'     Did  Mr.  A.  knovr  wh;>.r. 


1 6  Second  Expofttion  of 

he  is  doing,  he  would  be  aftoni/ted  and  confouiaded.  He 
is  himfelf  refufing  to  obey  the  Lord  ;  and  not  only  fo,  he 
is  ignorantly  doing  what  he  can  to  blind  others,  fo  that 
they  alfo  may  be  iifobedient.  This  is  a  great  miftake  in 
him.  He  may  think  me  bold  ;  I  am  fo,  and  truth  makes 
me  fo  ;  yes,  and  the  time  is  come,  in  which  the  children  of 
God,  who  know  the  truth,  may  be  bold.  For  the  leaven^ 
which  T/as  to  leaven  xht  whole  lump,  is  remarkably  fer- 
menting ;  and  the  time  is  not  far  off,  when  the  dominion, 
and  the  greatnefs  of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven, 
jfhould  be  given  to  God's  people.  The  ftcne  cut  from  the 
mountain  without  hands,  will  foon  fill  the  whole  earth. 
At  fuch  a  time,  and  thus  circumftanced,  fuch  as  know  the 
figns  of  the  times,  may  be  bold  to  vindicate  the  ways  of 
God  to  men,  and  to  aflert  the  laws,  ordinances,  and  rightful 
authority  of  their  King. 

Another  miftake  which  Mr.  A.  makes  in  the  above 
quotation,  is,  that  his  objetftion  defttoys  my  principles. 
Again,  in  the  clofe  of  the  pa/Tage,  he  fays,  "  Let  it  but 
touch  them,  and  they  vanifh  like  a  bubble."  This  is  all 
miftake.  The  good  man  knows  not  what  he  fays,  nor 
whereof  he  affirms. 

One  fentence,  which  I  have  not  yet  noticed,  deferves 
particular  attention.  ^' I  JJjould  think  (fays  he)  any  man, 
•who  had  made  fiich  a  conquejl  o'i^er  his  prejudices,  could  not  have 
this  army  of  co-heirs  with  Chrifi  of  eternal  hlejfednefs  fafs  before 
his  imagination,  after  having  treated  them  in  this  cavalier  ivay, 
nuithout  Jinking  as  low  as  the  mojl  feeling  felfdetejiation  could 
place  him." 

I  forgive  Mr.  A.  all  his  rudenefs  of  fpetch,  perceiving 
he  hath  a  zeal  for  God,  but  in  this  particular  not  accord- 
ing to  knowledge.  He  fuppofes  that  he  is  with  the  truth  ; 
jsut,  as  his  brother  Lmmons  informs  us,  when  a  man  comes 
to  the  truth,  he  ksou  s  it.  Can  he  fuppofe,  that  I  fhould 
deteft  myfelf  for  telling  him  the  truth,  and  for  placing 
many  cf  the  Lord's  people  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift, 
when  the  Lord  tells  me  they  are  there,  and  commands  them  to 
come  out  ?  Befides,  who  knows  but  God  hath  chofeti  me,  to 
be  one  of  the  weak  inftruments,  by  which  his  people  fhall 
fo  effedually  hear  his  voice  as  to  be  obedient  ?  However 
this  may  be,  one  thing  1  know — it  becomes  me  to  declaie 
his  truth,  and  not  be  afraid.     May  Mr.  A.  hear  and  obey^ 

3.  I  muft  now  mention  another  of  his  miftakes,  which 
is  alfo  conneded  with  a  fophifm. 


Mr.  Avjiuis  Mijlakcs.  \J 

I  do  not  expofe  Mr.  A.  that  I  may  provoke  him,  unlefs 
it  be  to  relinquifti  a  bad  caufe ;  but  that  he  may  fee  what 
abfurdities  and  blunders  it  unavoidably  leads  him  into,  and 
thus  be  perfuaded  to  give  truth  one  candid  review.     Mr. 
A.  has  abilities  enough  to  go  ftraight  in  a  plain  highway, 
but  no  man  has  a  fufficiency  to  go  thus  in  a  crooked  path. 
This  miftake  and  fophifm  of  his  are  in   page   1 2,  where 
his  words  to  me  are,  "  You  fay,  page  20,  one  of  our  prin- 
ciples is,  that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubjed  of  baptifm,  unlefs  he 
be  a  penitent ;  if  it  is,  (fays  he)  the  greater  is  your  error  } 
but  I  do  not  believe  it  is :  it  was  not  Dr.  Gill's  p.  inciple." 
This  is  Mr.  A.'s  miftake ;  for  there  is  not  a  Baptift  in  the 
•world,  nor  has  been,  who  has  any  principles  upon  the  fub- 
jed,  but  this  is  one  of  them,  that  no  perfon  is  ^Jit  JubjeB  of 
baptifm  unlefs  he  be  a  penitent.     Had  Mr.  A.  have  known 
the  gofpel  fitnefs  for  baptifm,  he   would  have  known  this 
with  equal  certainty  that  he  knows  an  hypocrite  is  not  a  fit 
fubjedl  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.     Eefldes,  his 
argument  to  prove  that  Dr.  Gill  did  not  hold  this  principle 
is  a  mere  fophifm,  and  proves  no  fuch  thing.     If  Dr.  Gill 
exprefsly  fays,  as  Mr.  A.  informs  us,  "  that  Simon  Magus 
was  baptized  in  'a.' pure  i\nd  apoJloUc  ivay,'^  this  is  no  evi- 
dence that  he  was  a  fit  fubjedt.     Simon  Magus  tuas  baptized 
upon  a  profejfton  of  faith  ;  this  was  the  pure  and  apollolic 
way ;  yet  he  was  not  a  fit  fubjedi,  he  only  appeared  to  be. 
The  adminiftrator  was  but  a  man,  and  was  therefore  obli- 
ged to  judge  from  what  was  vifible.     Could  the  adminif- 
trator have  feen  Simon's   true  chara(51er,  he   would   have 
known  him  to  be  not  a  fit  fubjeft.     The  adminiftrator's  not 
difcovering  this  unfitnefs,  did  not  change  Simon's  hypocrify 
into   gofpel  fitnefs  for  baptifm  ;  yet,  as  Simon  made  pro- 
feffion  of  faith,  and  appeal  ed  to  poffefs  it,  he  was  baptized 
in  the  pure  and  apoftolic  way. 

4.  Mr.~A.  in  the  fame  page,  gives  us  another  of  his 
iriiftakes.  Says  he,  "Be  this  (about  Simon)  hoiv.-ver  as 
it  may  ;  one  of  your  principles  Is,  that  no  perfon  is  a 
member  of  Chrift's  church  till  he  is  baptized.  This  re- 
duces you  to  the  neceffity  of  contending,  that  there  may  be 
millions  of  vifible  Chriftians,  eminently  fuch,  who  are  not 
in  Chrift's  vifible  church.  One  would  fuppofe  bcic/ehand, 
that  a  man  muft  be  put  to  It  e.vcefiively  to  maintain  fuch  a 
fentimeut  as  this."  To  be  fure,  fuch  as  ji' :,^-e  hejynhand^ 
fuch  as  judge  of  a  matter  before  they^  hear  it,  n.-^hc  iuppofe  a 
man  put  to  It  exceflively,  to  maintain,  that  there  raay  be 
c 


i8  Second  Expofit'wn  of 

millions  of  vifiblc  Chrifti. ins,  eminently  fuch,  who  are  not 
in  Chrifl's  vifible  church.  But  when  one  comes  to  hear 
the  matter,  and  finds  this  was  to  l^e  the  cafe,  that  many 
were,  at  fucb  a  time  as  this,  to  be  found,  not  only  out  of 
Chrifl's  vifibJe  church,  but  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift's, 
and  efpecially  when  one  comes  to  hear  the  Lord  calling 
this  multitude  out  ot:  hx-^r,  he  no  longer  fuppofes  the  man 
holding  this  principle  muft  be  put  to  it  exceflively  ;  but  he 
knows  the  opponents  have  an  hard  fide  to  defend,  and  that 
they  muft  make  many  m'ljlakei. 

5.  We  vill  therefore  attend  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  mif- 
takes.  Says  he,  pages  16,  17,  a  man  "  m.ay  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  thv  vifible  church,  yet  he  may  know  that  he  is  a 
fmner  and  needs  fcrgivenefs.  He  may  be  acquainted  with 
Chriil,  und  the  way  of  falvation  through  him,  and  believe  to 
the  faving  of  his  foul.  This  may  be  known  to  hundreds  of 
Chriftians,  at  a  diftance.  He  may,  of  courfe,  be  a  member 
of  the  vifible  church  :  for  a  man's  vfibilhy  refpcEls  nuhat  be  'us 
in  itje  eyes  of  others.  Would  he  not  be  a  member  of  the  vlflle 
church,  if  he  were  bapti-zeJ  ?  If  he  luould,  then  the  fuppojcd 
d'fpxultyy  from  his  fit  nation,  is  no  difficulty  at  all." 

Here  Mr.  A.  gives  up  and  condemns  his  whole  fcheme, 
and  then  adds  a  great  miftake  at  the  clofe.  The  reader 
will  bear  In  mind,  that  Mr.  A.'s  fcheme  is,  that  when  a 
man  is  converted  he  belongs  to  the  vifible  church;  for  he 
fays,  page  1 4,  "  What !  be  converted  to  Chrift,  and  not 
join  his  kingdom  ?"  as  he  explains  himfelf,  What !  become 
converted  to  Chrift,  and  not,  at  the  fame  time,  become  a 
mem.ber  of  his  vifible  church?  But  here,  he  tells  us,  That 
the  converfon  of  an  heathen  being  hnoivn  to  others,  is  ivhat  con- 
fitutes  him  a  member  of  the  vifible  church.  To  ihow  Mr.  A. 
that  by  labouring  to  extricate  himfelf  from  one  pei-plexing 
cafe,  he  has  involved  him.felf  in  another  of  equal  difficulty, 
I  will  propofe  for  his  confideration  this  queltion  : — Suppofe 
no  Chrift ian  knew  of  this  heathen  man's  converfion,  would 
he  then  belong  to  the  viiible  church  .''  If  he  anfwer.  Yes, 
then  he  contradicts  what  he  has  juft  faid,  that  a  man's  vfi- 
bility  rejpeds  ivhat  he  is  in  the  eyes  of  others.  If  he  fay.  No, 
then  he  gives  up  his  fcheme,  that  a  converfion  of  a  per/on 
confiitutes  him  a  nwmber  of  the  vifible  church.  Mr.  A.  is  in  a 
perplexing  cafe.  But  we  wfll  fee  his  miftake  at  the  clofe. 
"  Would  he  not  (fays  he)  be  a  member  of  the  vifible 
church,  if  he  were  baptized  ?"  To  be  fure,  if  he  were  bap- 
tized he  would  be  a  member  of  the  vifible  church  ;  for 
gofpel  baptifm  is  the  very  thing  which  conftitutes  him  a 


Mr.  Aujiin's  Mijiakes,  19    > 

member.  Now,  fays  Mr.  A.  •*  if  he  would,  then  the  fup- 
pofed  difficulty,  from  his  fituation,  is  no  difficulty  at  all." 
That  is,  if  a  converted  heathen,  who  is  favoured  with  an 
adminiftrator,  baptized,  and  thus  received  into  the  vifible 
church,  would  be  a  member  of  it,  then  there  is  no  difficulty 
ill  fuppofing  him  a  member  of  the  vihble  church,  though 
he  haS  never  been  thus  favoured,  nor  ever  admitted  into  it. 
In  what  confufion  are  Mr.  A.'s  ideas  !  ihe  fault,  however, 
is  not  his  deficiency  of  talents,  but  in  the  miferably  errone- 
ous caufe  he  is  defending. 

6.  But  I  haftcn  to  another  of  Mr.  A.'s  raiftakes.  In 
my  Letters  to  him,  page  38,  my  words  are, — All  your  ^ 
objcdlion  againft  allowing  that  the  apofile  (in  Rom.  vi.  4. 
and  Col.  ii.  12.)  alludes  to  and  intends  water  baptiim,  is 
conHdered  to  ariie  from  an  apprehenfion  that  immerfion 
would  certainly  follow.  His  reply  is,  page  33,  "You  muft 
confider  it  fo,  if  you  will ;  but  my  apprehenlion  really  has 
another  origin.  It  is,  that  an  infuperable  objeflion  would 
be  furnifued  againft  the  apoflle's  infpiration  ;  for  then  he 
would  teach  us,  that  water  baptifm,  inftead  cf  the  haptijm 

Sf  the  Holy  Ghcifi,  is  the  thing' by  which  we  beccme  dead 
b  fm  and  rife  to  newnefs  of  life." 
Here  Mr.  A.  is  again  in  difficulty.  His  difficulty  arifes 
from  a  miftake  which  he  has  made.  I  will  endeavour  to 
expofe  the  one,  and  thus  help  him  out  of  the  other.  Hiis 
miftake  is,  that  we  fhould  endanger  the  infpiration  of  the 
apoftle,  did  we  not  believe  that  we  become  dead  to  fm  and 
rife  to  newnefs  of  life  by  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
The  faifl  is,  Mr.  A.  has  wholly  miitaken  the  fcriptures,  in 
this  matter.  They  fay  nothing  about  a  perfon's  becoming 
dead  to  fm,  er  riling  to  nevvnels  of  life,  by  the  baptifm  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  nor  by  water  baptifm,  otherwife  than  by 
a  figure.  This  expofes  his  miPake,  and  opens  the  deer  for 
him  to  leave  his  difficulty,  if  he  choofe.  For  furely,  our 
not  believing  contrary  from  the  fcriptures,  but  believing 
them  as  they  are,  can  furnifli  no  iniuperal;le  objeflion,  nor 
an  objeclion  of  any  other  kind,  agauift  the  infpiration  of 
the  apoftle.* 

•  This  miftake  of  Mr.  A.'s,  he  might  receive  from  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Parifli,  of  Byefield,  whole  ftron;^  P^rty  Sermon  was  founded  upon  the 
f.une  miftake.  Let  the  reader  but  be  delivered  from  this  new  notion, 
that  perfons  are  born  again  by  beii:g  baptized  with  the  Koly  Ghoft,  and 
he  at  once  fees  through  the  fallacy  and  difcovers  the  profound  weaknefs 
of  what  Mr  P.  lo  fmartly  faid  againft' the  Baptifts,  in  his  Sermon  of 
May  laft.     The  author  has  fallen  into   the  vtry  miftake  to  which  hft. 


20  Second  Expofttion  of 

7.  I  will  now  prefent  the  public  with  an  whole  clufler 
of  Mr.  A.'s  miaakcs,  and  they  may  be  taken  as  a  ipecimen 
of  all  the  remainder  ;  afierwards  fome  of  his  mifreprefenta- 
tions  will  be  noticed.  '1  his  group  of  miftakes  is  in  his 
47th  page.     In  the  firlt  place,  I  will  prefent  this  bundle  of 

confidered  the  Baptiils,  on  accouIl^  of  their  extreme  ignorance,  to  be 
much  espt.fcd.  He  has,  ;o  an  iDcommcn  degree,  mifapplied  one  of  che 
figures  of  jnrpiration.  He  has  been  kird  enough  to  inform  ns,  that 
fpintiial  baptilm,  or  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  is  the  new  birth, 
or  regeneration  ;  but  hfls  not  Furtiifhed  his  authority.  He  tells  us  that 
the  text  means  this.  V\'e  deny  that  the  text,  or  hac  any  other  text  in  tre 
Bible,  has  ever  faid  any  fuch  hing.  How  are  we  buried  -with  Chiiji  in 
b.:ptifm,  cr  raifcJ  ivith  him  in  baptif,n,  in  the  moment  of  regeneration, 
any  iwore  than  in  every  fuccecding  holy  exerciie  ?  This  is  a  new  inven- 
tion of  his  ai;d  his  brethren,  to  jre    rid  of  the  gofpel  baptifm. 

The  old  Romanics  confidered  ii.otcr  baptifm  to  he  n-^meration,  or  th« 
latter  to  he  conEei<Ted  with  the  fornnr,  or  to  depend  on  it ;  fo  that, 
when  baptifm  was  performed,  regeneration  was  effedcd.  So  have  the 
Church  of  1- ngland  confidered  this  matter.  But,  if  1  mifiake  not,  no 
author,  till  Mr.  P.  and  fome  of  his  brethren,  to  juftify  their  unfcriptural 
nte  of  fpnnkling,  and  to  take  from  the  baptized  church  the  plain  fcrip- 
turc  account  of  gofpel  baptifm,  arofe,  has  ever  pretended  that  regenera- 
tor! >s  the  baptifm  c  f  the  Holy  Ghoft.  The  Bible  mentions  nothing  »,f 
their  forced  co!ifiru(fl:on  of  the  figurative  Jarguage  of  infpiraticn.  The 
fcripture  account  is  totally  different  from  Mr.  P.'s.  ']  hat  iuforms  us, 
A<a^i.  5  that  ihe  dilciples,  who  had  Jong  be.fcr;  followed  their  divine 
Lord  m  the  regeneration,  fhould  he  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  not 
TKanydays  hence.  Mr,  P,  muft  either  conclude,  that  perfons  in  the  days 
of  Ghriil  and  his  r.poftlcs  were  regenerated  twice,  cr  that  the  b.-ipti'm 
or  the  Holy  GJ.oft  is  now  a  differuu  thing  from  what  it  tl  in  was ;  or 
that  regeneration  is  not  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofl ;  and  confcquevily, 
that  a  htiU  mere  erudition  is  tieceJT.irv  to  Lis  e^pLinin?  the  bold  figures  of 
reveh:ti,n  ^  '^  •' " 

But  to  fpoil  Mr  P's  whole  fuppofcd  f?rength  at  a  flrokc,  let  the 
reader  but  view  lis  tontruft.  It  is  (hif— '<  As\bc  burial  of  Ttfus  Chrift 
gave  cvidet:re  th.t  he  had  really  ^h<,A,  the  juU  for  tlie  unj..ft  ;  fo  we,  in 
our  fpirnual  taytifm,  fliow  curfLl.,>s  to  be  really  dend  to  fm." 

^l!*^'  i*-  '^""^P''"'^'^  O'"  '■q""i'fpirilual  baptifm  with  rge^eroticii,  page  I  3  r, 
cf  the  ColUau^n.  1  hen  we  will  take  regeneration  infJead  of  Ipijitual 
bapt)fm,and  fee  how  his  cortrafc  wHl  ftand  the  teft  of  fcripture  ai:d  his 
own  fcimments.  "  As  the  burial  cf  Jcfus  Chrift  gave  evidence  that  he 
had  really  dted,  the  juft  f(  r  the  unjuft  ;  fo  we,  in  regeneration,  fhow 
ourftlves  to  be  really  dead  to  fin." 

The  fcriprures  (ay,  The  wind  bJoweth  where  it  li{>eth,  and  thou 
hcareft  the  found  thereof,  but  citnfl  not  tell  wher.ce  it  conicth  nor 
whither  It  goeth  :  fo  is  evtry  one  that  is  bem  cf  the  Spirit.  Bring  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance,  or  as  evidtnce  of  repentance.  By  their  fruits 
ye  fhall  know  thi  m,  ^-c.  In  thefe  texts,  nor  in  any  other,  is  there  any 
ji.timatinn,  that  m  regenerat.on  wc  fhow  ourfelves  to  be  dtad  to  fin; 
hvt  that  this  IS  made  vifible  by  the  fruits  of  regeneration,  or  by  the 
aiiiions  of  the  new  creatercj  but  not  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  in 
whicn  iic  IS  regenerated 


Mr.  Aujiin's  Mijiakes.  21 

iniftakes  entire  ;  then  expofe  them   one  by  one.     Mr.  A. 
introduces  and  prefents  them  iu  the  following  manner. 

*'  In  page  74,  to  my  argument  (lays  he)  from  your  fup- 
pofed  opinion,  that  many  dying  in  infancy  are  iaved,  you 
reply  in  this  manner  : — *  Perhaps  your  idea  is  this,   That  I 

If  I  underflard  Mr.  P.'s  fentiments,  they  are, — i.  That  a  natural  man 
hath  not  one  fpiritually  good  thought-  a.  That  regeneration  is  effcdcd 
by  the  fpeeial  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  3.  That  the  manifeji  exerc:fes 
of  the  new  creature  are  the  natural  confsquences  of  regeneration,  but  ar« 
rot  themfelves  regeneration. 

Thefe  being  his  fentiments,  then  his  contrail  is  at  war  with  them,  as 
well  as  with  the  Bible  :  for  we  do  not,  in  regeneration,  fhow  ourielves 
dead  to  fin  ;  but  in  the  ccnfequent  acfts  or  fraits  of  it,  we  fhov/  this. 

If  thefe  cbfervations  be  juft,  Mr.  P.  had  been  more  prudent  had  he 
kept  his  Sermon  to  himfelf,  and  expreffed  lefsfear  left  theater,  ignorant^ 
and  illiterate  Biiptifts  fhould  greatly  injure  the  caufe  of  Chrift,  by  mif- 
epplicatiOns  oi  fcripture  Jigures. 

But  Mr.  P.  in  his  note,  pages  143,  144,  hath  manifefted  his  mind  to 
ke  fo  crowded  with  oppofition  to  the  baptized  church,  as  to  deprive  hint 
•f  his  ufual  fprightlinefs  of  reGclle<3ion.  Thus  it  hath  happened  to  him, 
as  is  common  to  thofe  who  arc  over  zealous  ;  they  betray  themfelves, 
rather  than  foil  their  opponents.  As  Mr.  P.  hath,  with  no  fmall  rude- 
nefs,  cxpofed  himfelf,  he  cannot  juftly  take  it  unkindly  to  have  his  twtt 
increafe  its  publicity.  I  fhall  take  liberty  to  tranfcribe  a  few  ftntences, 
of  which  I  ihould  have  thought  Mr.  P.  incapable.  Should  he  publickly 
deny  their  being  his,  and  pro\'e  his  innocency,  then  will  they  be  taken 
from  his  account.  But  thfy  look  fo  like  other  parts  of  his  Sermon-, 
proof  might  i;    difficult,  unlcfs  he  deny  the  whole. 

Says  he,  "  Probably  the  (Baptifl)  denomination  have  received  forae 
advantage,  in  the  courfe  of  a  century  or  two,  from  a  few  folitary  cort- 
gregational  preachers  joining  them,  who  had  received  dij)!omas  from 
fome  college.  This  muft,  however,  be  one  of  their  minor  advantages  ; 
for  when  was  it  known  that  the  dijlinguijhed  members  of  ^  party  diferted? 
Men,  confcious  of  their  inferiority  to  their  brethren  in  literature  ai;d  talents, 
have  a  poiuerful  temptation  to  apcjiatize,  where  their  relative  greatnrfs 
will  be  ad-uariced." 

A  few  quellions  for  the  reader. 

1.  Could  Mr.  P.  had  not  his  recollection  been  left,^but  have  called  to 
mind,  that  the  very  apoftle  who  v/rote  his  text,  was  ene  of  thefe  deferters  ? 

2.  Did  not  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  Peter,  Jame.s,  and  Jude, 
all  of  them,  defert  their  party,  the  Jewifli  church,  and  join  the  Chriftian  ? 

•      3.    Did  not  Martin  Luther  and  John  Calvin  deftrt  their  party,  the 
Judaized  and  Judaizing  church  of  Rome  } 

4.  Did  not  all  the  celebrated  reformers  of  the  reformed  church  detrt 
tlieir  party,  and  come  cut,  in  me;.fure,  from  the  man  of  fm  ^ 

5.  Did  ni  t  all  the  leaders  of  the  Congregational  and  Prefbyterian 
denomiriatin---,  when  they  broke  off  from  the  Church  of  England,  of 
from  th'i  r-or-ar.union  of  the  Papifts,  defert  their  party  .' 

6.  ^V>r- nine  of  thefe,  diftinguifhed  members  of  the  party  whence 
trief  br6kccf.  ^' 

C'  2 


7,2  Second  Expofition  of 

believe  fome  infants,  "who  have  not  been  immerfed,  may  go 
to  heaven,  and  be  finally  faved.  This,  Sir,  I  do  beheve. 
But  what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  prefent  controverfy  ?* 
It  hath  this  to  do  with  it,  Sir ;  it  entirely  refutes  your 
hypothefis.  li^ou  have  no  ivarrant  to  believe  any  human 
being  is  faved-,  who  is  not  to  ycu  a  vifille  member  of  the  king' 
dom  of  Ckrijl.  This  is  the  force  of  the  argument,  which  ycu 
have  not  noticed  at  all.  Your  notion  of  holding  people  to 
be  good  people,  and  heirs  cf  glory,  who  have  no  vifible 
place  in  the  kingdona  of  God,  is  an  outrage  upon  common 
fenfe,  and  a  contradiction  to  the  whole  Bible.  You  exclude 
all  infants,  without  exception,  from  this  vifible  kingdom  ; 
the  confequence  is,  that  no  warrant  remains  for  you  to 
confider  any  of  them  as  faved.  All  the  heirs  of  falvation 
are  fpoken  oi  as  being  fuch  vifibly  in  this  world.  Ifaiah 
ki.  (,.  And  their  feed  ihall  be  known  among  the  Gentilesj 
and  their  oitspring  among  the  people :  all  that  fee  thenv 
Ihall  acknowledge  them,  that  they  are  the  feed  which  the 
Lord  hath  blelied.  Hundreds  of  other  texts  there  are  to 
the  fame  purpofe." 

The  reader  will  particularly  notice  my  words,  which 
gave  occafion  to  Mr.  A.  to  make  the  milftakes  which  follows 
My  words  are,  I  believe  fome  infants,  who  have  not  been 
iinmerfed,  may  go  to  heaven  and  be  finally  faved.  I  then 
alk.  Bat  what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  prefent  controverfy  ? 
His  reply  is,  •'  It  hath  this  to  do  with  it ;  it  entirely  refutes 
your  hypothefis."  The  reader  fhall  know  my  hypothefis  ; 
it  is  this — No  unbaptized  perfon  belongs  to  the  vifible  church 
cf  Chrift.  This  hypothefis,  fays  he,  is  entirely  refuted  by 
allowing,  that  fome  children,  who  have  not  been  baptized, 
or  immerfed,  and  fo  not  in  Chrift's  vi/ible  churchy  may  be 
finally  faved.  If  this  fentiment  refute  my  hypothefis,  then 
the  old  papiftical  notion  which  Mr.  A.  hath  adopted  is 
true — That  vone  but  church  members  can  pojfibly  be  faved.  This 
is  one  of  his  miftiikes. 

Aeain,  he  fays,  •'  You  have  no  'warrant  to  believe,  that 
any  human  bei»g  is  faved,  who  is  not  to  you  a   vifible 

7  Did  not  Mr  P.  in  his  zeal,  fo  forget  himfelf,  as  to  denounce  all 
the  famous  leaders  of  his  own  and  .of  all  otiier  denominations,  that  he 
mi^ht,  not  in  a  very  heconiing  manner,  aim  his  unkind  Ihafts  againft  a 
few  folitary  Congregational  jrtachers,  who  have,  to  anfwer  a  good 
conference,  dared  to  renounce  the  traditions  of  men,  that  they  might 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  ? 

I  Ihall  now  leave  Mr.  P.  to  his  own  refledions,  and  the  j^uhlic  to 
form  their  own  judgnaent,  upon  fuch  management  as  thie. 


Mr.  Aujilns  Mijiakes,  23 

member  of  the  kingdom  of  Chrift."  I  will  here  prefent 
my  warrant.  Gcd  tells  me,  Rev.  xviii.  4.  that  he  hath 
people  within  the  limits  of  Antichri/i's  church.  Thofe  who 
are  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift's  church,  are  not  to  me, 
nor  ought  they  to  be  confidered  by  any,  as  members  of  the 
viftble  church  of  Chrift.  I  have,  therefoie,  a  warrant  to 
believe  that  fome  of  thefe,  v/ho  are  born  of  Chrift's  Spirit, 
being  within  the  limits  of  Babylon,  and  m.any  of  them 
living  and  dying  there,  not  only  may  be  faved,  but  muft  be,. 
This  expofes  another  of  his  miitakes. 

Again,  fays  he,  "  1  his  is  the  force  of  the  argument, 
which  you  have  not  noticed  at  all."  What  the  iorce  of 
the  argument  ?  That  none  but  vifible  church  members  can 
be  faved.  Which,  fays  he,  "  you  have  not  noticed  at  aU." 
Then  it  fhall  be  noticed  ;  for  it  is  one  of  the  firft-born  fons 
of  the  church  of  Rome.  The  pope,  moft  afTuredly,  con- 
ilders  himfelf  and  his  church  as  tiie  only  church  of  Chrift, 
and  that  none  can  be  faved  out  of  h'ls  hounds  ;  hence  it  is 
lawful  for  him  to  kill  all  heretics,  all  who  will  not  fubmit 
to  his  holy  catholic  church  ;  and  to  convert  by  fire  and 
fword,  as  for  many  ages  he  did,  the  heathen  jiations  to  his 
religion,  and  compelled  tbcm  to  be  members  of  his  church. 
Thefe  violent  meafures  may  be  greatly  palliated,  if  the 
pope's  fentiment  be  correft.  It  is,  however,  the  fame  with 
Mr.  A.'s.  Hence,  if  the  force  of  Mr.  A.'s  argum.ent  be 
allowed,  or  the  fentiment  in  which  the  force  of  it  is,  not 
one  within  the  limits  of  Antichrift's  kingdom,  not  one  with- 
in the  Mahometan  countries,  not  one  in  any  heathen  nation, 
can  be  faved.  No,  nor  can  one  infant,  from  Adam's  day 
to  our's,  have  been  faved ;,  nor  can  o"ne  adult,  who  may- 
die  at  fea,  where  there  is  no  Chriftian  to  behold  him,  nor 
one  who  may  die  in  our  own  land,  and  is  not  known  to  be 
a  Chiiftian  by  others,  be  ever  faved.  For  Mr.  A.  informs 
us,  we  have  no  'warrant  to  believe  that  any  are  faved  who 
are  not  members  of  Chr'ijVs  vifible  church  ;  and  page  16,  he 
tells  us,  that  no  man  is  a  member  of  Chrift's  vifible  church, 
unlcfs  be  is  fien  or  kn(<wn  to  be  fo  by  others ;  for,  fays  he, 
*' yj  man's  'v'lJwiV.iy  rejpetls  ivhat  he  is  in  the  eyes  of  others.'' 
Hence,  if  Chriltians  do  not  know  or  confider  us  to  be  of 
their  number,  there  can  be  no  hope  of  our  falvation.  I 
will  confiJer  the  force  of  tJiis  argument  farther,  when  he 
ihall  defire  it. 

Again,  fays,  our  author,  "  Your  notion  of  holding  people 
to  be  good  people,  and  heirs  of  glory,  who  have  no  vijibk 
place  in  the  kiiigdoni  of  God^  is  au.  outrage  upon  conamoa 


24  Second  Expqfit'ion  of 

fenfe,  and  a  contradiflion  to  the  whole  Bible."  That  is, 
my  notion  that  any  are  converted  before  they  belong  to  the 
v'tfikk  church  of  Chri'l,  and  that  there  are  any  of  his  holy 
or  regenerated  people,  who  do  not  belong  to  this  church 
of  Chrift,  is  an  outrage  upon  common  fenfe,  and  a  contra- 
diiftion  to  the  whole  Bible.  I  venture  to  fay,  that  all  the 
genuine  common  fenfe  which  there  is  in  the  world,  will  fet 
down  this  charge  of  Mr.  A.'s  as  one  of  his  miflahes.  Be- 
fidcs,  I  will  venture  to  fay  a  little  farther,  that  I  know  of 
no  denomination  of  profefTed  Chriftians,  in  any  part  of  the 
globe,  fave  his  holinefs  the  pope  and  his  blinded  and  big- 
goted  adherents,  who  are  in  fentiment  with  Mr.  A.  Yes, 
and  the  Bible  no  where  intimates,  that  my  notion  is  errone- 
ous, or  that  his  is  correiH: ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  every 
where,  when  the  fubje<5l:  is  mentioned,  teflifics  that  my 
notion  is  according  to  truth,  and  that  his  is  a  miftake,  not 
to  fay  a  delufion.  The  preaching  of  John  was,  that  the 
people  fhould  repent  and  be  converted,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  the  vifible  church  of  Chrifl,  was  at  hand  ;  other- 
wife,  they  would  not  be  prepared  to  join  it.  The  plain, 
the  fimple,  the  unequivocal  idea  is,  that  they  muft  be  con- 
verted to  God,  before  they  were  fit  fubjeds,  or  prepared  to 
join  the  v'tjihle  church  of  Chrift.  'I  he  preaching  of  Jefus 
Chrift  was  the  fame,  and  he  fpake  and  frill  fpeaks  the  fame 
language.  The  broad  commiflion  which  our  Lord  gave 
his  difciplcs  was,  that  they  ftiould  teach,  and  fo  teach  that 
their  hearers  fhould  become  difciples,  believers,  and  con- 
verted perfons  ;  and  this  too  before  they  were  to  baptize 
them,  or  to  receive  them  into  the  i:'ifih!e  church  of  Chrift, 
Thofe  who  were  thus  converted  were,  as  we  are  told  in  the 
A(fts  of  the  Apoftles,  added  to  the  church  daily.  Befides, 
the  Bible  fpeaks  of  God's  having  people,  who  are  not  only 
out  of  Chrift's  •vijihle  church,  but  within  the  Um'its  of  Anti- 
chrift's.   Rev.  xviii. 

Again,  Mr.  A.  gees  on,  and  tells  me,  faying,  "  You  ex- 
clude all  infants,  without  exception,  from  this  vifible  king- 
dom." Certainly,  and  who  told  him  to  put  them  in  ?  He 
adds,  "  The  conlequence  is,  that  no  warrant  remains  for 
you  to  confider  any  of  them  as  faved."  Ihis  confequence. 
is  another  of  his  mijlakcs.  There  is  no  connexion  between 
his  preniife  and  conclufion. 

Once  more,  fays  he,  "  All  the  heirs  of  falvation  are 
fpoken  of  as  being  fuch  vifibly  in  this  world."  This  alfo 
is  one  of  his  miftakes.  But  he  has  attempted  to  prove  it. 
Let  us  hear  his  evidence.     "  Ifaiah  Ixi.  9.   And  their  feed 


Mr.  Atijlins   M'l/iakes.      ''  25 

fliall  be  known  among  the  Gentiles,  and  their  offspring 
among  the  people  :  all  that  fee  them  fhall  acknowledge 
them,  that  they  are  the  feed  which  the  Lord  hath  blefled. 
Hundreds  of  other  texts  there  are  to  the  fame  purpofe." 
To  what  purpofe  ?  To  prove  that  none  fhall  be  laved,  but 
fuch  as  belong  to  the  "v/ftbk  church  of  Chrill:  on  earth  ? 
This  text  fays  no  fuch  thing  ;  yet  he  fays,  ••  Hundreds  of 
other  texts  there  are  to  the  fuTiie  purpcfe.^'  I'ruly,  there 
are  ;  but  tvhere  is  there  one  to  h'ls  purpofe  ?  Not  a  fingle 
text,  from  Genelis  to  Revelation,  which  gives  him  the  leall 
countenance. 

Theie  miftakes,  which  have  been  now  mentioned,  may 
be  taken  by  the.  reader. as  a  lample  for  the  reft;  indeed, 
his  pamphlet  is  little  elfe  but  one  gn^ai  7rjj}ake. 

Should  I\Ir.  A.  take  advantage,  becaufe  I  have  not  ex- 
pofed  all  his  millakes,  and  here;ifter  pretend  that  I  admit 
one  fentence  of  his  erroneous  ftnlements  to  be  true,  becaufe 
I  have  not  in  particular  expofed  the  whole,  I  may,  if  the 
Lord  will,  at  fome  future  time,  unmaflt  the  reft  ;  but  for 
the  prefent  we  will  turn  cur  attention  to  two  or  three  of 
his  mifreprefentations. 

I.  The  firft  which  I  fhall  notice  is  in  page  14,  where, 
fpeaking  of  the  vijibh  church  of  Chrift,  his  words  are, 
•'  Your  breaking  up  of  the  church  of  Chrift  into  httle  petty 
detachments,  and  making  it  necefTary  for  a  man  to  become 
incorporated  into  one  of  them,  in  order  to  his  being  a  mem- 
ber of  that  church,  is  unfcriptural,"  The  whole  of  this  is 
a  fhecr  milrcprci'entation.  What  the  good  man  meant,  or 
can  honeftly  m.can,  I  know  not.  If  he  mean,  that  it  is  un- 
fcriptural to  hold  the  church  of  Chrift  hath  many  branche?, 
fuch  as,  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  church  of  Ephefus,  the 
church  of  Colofie,  the  church  in  the  hcufe  of  Philemon,  &c. 
is  unfcriptural,  then  he  would  have  us  bei'wve  that  the  Bible 
is  tnifcripti.rol.  If  he  wculd  have  us  believe  it  to  be  un- 
fcriptural, to  hold  that  a  perfon  muft  be  incorporated  into 
a  particular  branch  of  Chrift's  church,  in  (-rder  to  his  being 
a  member  of  that  branch,  then  he  would  teach  us  that  the 
fcriptures  are  rot  confi Rent  v/iih  ccmnion  fenfe.  If  he 
intend  to  convey  to  the  public  this  idea, — that  I  make  it 
neceffary  for  a  perfrn  to  be  incorporated  into  fome  partic- 
ular branch  of  Chrift's  church,  in  order  to  his  being  a  member 
of  his  'vlftbh  church,  this  is  mere  mifrepjefentation  ;  I  have 
no  fuch  fentimcnt  ;  I  have,  to  my  knowledge,  advocated 
nothing  which  looks  like  it.  My  fentiment  is,  that  when  a 
perfon  is  baptized  upon  a  profeiTicn  of  faith  he  belongs  to 


26  Second  Expofttion  of 

Chiill's  vifihle  church.  This  is  what  I  told  him  in  the  22d 
page  of  my  Letters  to  him.  He  has  either  mificprefented  ' 
the  fcriptures,  and  taught  us  to  believe  that  they  are  un- 
fcriptural  and  contrary  from  common  fenfc,  or  he  has  mif- 
reprefented  my  fentiment,  which  I  have  publickly  and  fully 
exprefied. 

2.  His  r.e.oL  mifreprefcntation  which  is  to  be  noticed,  is 
in  his  I J  th  page ;  it  is  contauied  in  his  arifwer  to  a  paffage 
which  he  quoted  from  the  20th  page  of  my  Letters  to  him. 
I  will  give  the  public  the  pafT.ige,  together  with  the  re- 
mainder of  the  paragraph.  It  is  this — '  The  manner  (fay 
1  to  him)  in  which  jo«  thro'-jj  the  objeaion  before  the  public, 
has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  giv'<,  an  incautious  reader  a 
very  unjufl  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles.  He 
would  naturally  enough  conclude,  that  I  muft,  if  confiftent 
with  myfelf,  believe  that  no  one  except  the  Baptifts  has 
any  religion  ;  that  I  conficer  and  treat  all  others  as  being 
impenitent  and  ungodly  ;  yes,  as  being  profligate  and  unre- 
generate.  A  more  unjufl  idea  could  not  be  communicated  ; 
ilich  an  idea  is  not  only  inconfiflent  with  my  principles,  but 
they  forbid  any  perfon's  fuggefting  that  fuch  an  idea  could 
fairly  be  deduced  from  them.  One  of  our  principles  is, 
that  no  perfon  is  a  fit  fubje<5t  of  baptifm,  unlefs  he  be  a 
penitent,  a  godly,  a  regenerate  perfon.' 

To  this  Mr.  A.  faw  fit  to  reply,  in  the  words  following : 
"  No,  Sir,  it  has  a  tendency  to  give  a  jujl  idea  of  the  ten- 
dency of  your  principle ;  you  yourfelf  could  not  be  blind 
to  ih'xs  tendency,  ior  you  call  it  natural.  He  would,  indeed, 
naturally  enough  conclude,  that  you  mufl,  if  confiftent  with 
yourfelf,  believe  that  none  except  the  Baptifts  have  any 
rehgion."  'i'hen,  to  complete  the  matter,  he  adds  one  of 
his  ibphifms,  to  prove  that  he  had  done  well.  Both  his 
mifreprefcntation  and  fophifm  mult  be  here  expofed. 

"  The  manner  in  which  he  threw  l\is  cbje^ftion  before  the 
public  (he  fays)  has  a  tendency  to  give  a  juft  idea  of  the 
tendency  of  your  principles.  You  could  not  (continues  he) 
be  blind  to  this  tendency,  for  you  call  it  vaturcd."  Here  lie 
perverts  my  words,  and  m.akes  me  fay  juit;  what  I  denied,, 
or  juft  the  contrary  from  what  I  faid.  What  I  told  him 
was,  "  that  the  manner  in  which  he  ihrcw  the  oljecfion  befoie 
the  public,  has  a  very  natural  tendency  to  give  an  incautious 
reader  a  very  wijujl  idea  of  the  tendency  of  my  principles." 
He  tells  the  public,  that  it  has  a  tend.^ncy  to  give  d.  juft  idea,, 
and  that  I  call  it  a  natural  tendency.  That  is,  he  tells  the 
public  that  I  allow  that  the  manner   in  which  hfr  threw  the 


Mn  Au/lin's  Mijiakes.  27 

objedlion  before  them  has  a  natural  tendency  to  give  a  jujl 
jW?^  of  my  principles  ;  whereas  I  told  him  it  had  a  very 
natural  tendency  to  give  a  very  unjujl  idea  of  them.  Such 
management  will  afford  but  little  credit  even  to  a  bad 
caufe. 

But  we  will  attend  to  his  fophifm,  by  which  he  would 
prove  the  whole.  Says  he,  «  Nothing  is  plainer,  than  that 
you  have  no  warrant  to  believe  a  perfon  has  any  religion 
who  has  not  the  vi/ibility  of  religion."  Certainly,  we  have 
no  warrant  to  believe  that  a  perfon  has  any  religion  who 
has  no  appearance  of  it.  But  what  hath  this  to  do  with 
the  prefent  debate  ?  How  does  it  prove,  that,  to  be  con- 
fiftent  with  my  principles,  I  mull  believe  that  none  has 
religion  but  the  Baptifls,  when  my  principles  are,  that  no 
one  can  honeftly  become  a  Baptlft,  or  a  baptized  profeffor, 
unlefs  he  be  previoujly  a  pojijbr  of  religion.  Mr.  A.  is 
either  afraid  to  know  the  principles  of  the  Baptifts,  or  he 
cannot  underftand  them,  or  he  will  not ;  for  if  he  can  and 
would  know  them,  then  he  could  not  honeftly  make  fo 
many  rniftakes  about  them. 

3,  I  will  mention  but  one  more  of  his  mifreprefenta- 
tions,  and  that  is  in  page  31,  in  which  he  prefents  to  the 
public  certain  fentiments,  and  reprefents  them  as  beino- 
mine,  whereas  they  are  fome  of  his  own,  which  I  put  to- 
gether for  his  infpeiftion.  He  has  inlpedted  one  particular, 
and  fays  of  it  thus  :  "  You  make  (fays  he)  the  ftrongeft 
application  of  this  imaginable.  You  lay,  to  be  buried  with 
Chrift  in  baptifm,  to  be  planted  in  the  likenefs  of  his  death, 
and  to  be  rifen  with  him  in  baptifm,  Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and 
Col.  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofc  exadly  coincides  with  this  rep- 
refentation."  Thefe  fentiments  are  by  no  means  mine  ;  I 
believe  no  fuch  thing.  To  (how  the  reader  Mr.  A.'s  mif- 
reprefentation,  and  that  the  ftrange  work  that  he  attributes 
to  me  is  his,  I  will  prefent  the  above  paffage  with  its  con- 
nexion, as  fet  down  in  pages  30,  31,  of  my  Letters. 

I  obferved  to  him  thus : — '  Speakiag  of  Kom.  vi.  4.  you 
fay,  page  45,  "  The  fpiritual,  internal  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  exactly  coincides  with  the  whole  of  his  (the  apof- 
tle's)  reprefentatiouj  and  invariably  produces  the  effects  he 
mentions." 

'  In  page  48,  fpeaking  of  Col.  ii.  12.  your  words  are, 
"  It  is  juft  like  the  other,"  i.  e.  it  is  juft  like  the  above 
paffage,  Rom.  vi.  4. 


2  8  Second  Exprjition  of 

*  In  the  pafla^e  which  we  have  been  juft  confidering, 
pages  33,  34,  yoH  tell  us,  "  Water  baptifni  is  undoubtedly 
a  fymbol  of  the  baptilm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  which  is  a 
figurative  baptifm  ;"  pages  60,  61. 

*  In  page  60,  you  have  thefe  words,—-*'  There  mud  be 
feme  evident  likenefs  between  the  fuhjeft  to  which  a  word 
is  applied,  in  the  natural  and  primitive  ufe  of  it,  and  the 
fubjcB  to  which  it  is  applied  as  a  fgun  ;  otherwife  there  is 
a  grofs  impropriety  in  the  figurative  ufe  of  it." 

'Now,  Sir,  (faid  I)  permit  me  to  put  thefe  ideas,  con- 
cefllons,  and  declarations  of  yours  together. 

*  I.  To  be  buried  with  Chrift  in  baptTm,  to  be  planted 
in  the  likenefs  of  his  death,  to  be  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tifm, Rom.  vi.  4,  5.  and  Col.  ii.  12.  is  to  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  or  the  biiptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ex- 
aiflly  coincides  with  this  reprefentation. 

'  2.  There  is  an  evident  likenefs  between  the  natural 
idea  of  planting,  burying,  and  rifmg  as  from  the  dead,  and 
the  figurative  baptifm  of  tiie  Holy  Ghoft,  or  there  is  a  grofs 
impropriety  (as  you  fay)  in  the  apoftle's  figurative  ufe  of 
the  words. 

'  3.  Water  baptifm  is  a  fymbol  or  figure  of  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  it  is,  therefore,  a  burying,  a  planting, 
or  immerfion,  your  Letters  as  well  as  the  word  of  God 
being  judge. 

*  Hence,  Sir,  (faid  I)  by  going  a  large  diftance  round, 
to  avoid  whai  you  feeued,  you  have  proved  to  my  hand 
what  I  endeavoured  to  eftablilh  through  the  couife  of  five 
fermons.' 

The  reader  will  now  judge  who  it  was  that  made  the 
Jlrongeji  application  irnaginabki  and  whether  it  be  not  a  mif- 
reprefentation  for  Mr.  A.  to  palm  his  erroneous  fentiments 
upon  the  pubuc  as  being  mine  ? 

But  fays  Mr.  A.  "  i  obkrved  to  you,  that  the  things 
compared  by  the  apoftle  wer.-,  our  de;uh  to  fm  with  Chrift's 
natural  death,  our  fpiritaal  burial  with  his  burial,  and  our 
rifing  to  newnefs  of  life  with  his  refurredlion.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apoftle,  die  baptifm  he  fpeaks  of  is  diftin- 
guiihabie  from  the  burial,  the  latter  being  in  or  by  the 
former.  I  repeat  it,  and  beg  you  would  not  overlook  the 
diftiadion.  I  take  tliefe  tilings,  ou!  death,  burial,  and  ref- 
un-edion,  to  be  eifefls;  and  baptifm  the  canfe." 

As  Mr.  A,  begs  me  not  to  overlook  the  diftindion  be- 
tween efFe<fls  and  caufe,  I  will  not,  but  attend  to  it ;  and 


Mr.  Aujilns  Mijlakcs.  29 

then  we  fliall  fee   if  his  caufe  looks  any   the  better  for  be- 
ing attended  to. 

He  informs  us,  firft,  That  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial, 
and  rifing  again  to  newnefs  of  life,  are  the  effefts  of  bap- 
tifm. 

Second,  That  water  baptifm  has  feme  evident  likenefs  to 
the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  to  regeneration,  which 
produces  thefe  effeds,  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial,  and 
refurredlion  to  newnefs  of  life. 

Third,  That  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  the  caufe 
of  our  death  to  fm,  fpiritual  burial,  and  refurrecflion  to  new- 
nefs of  life,  and  tuatcr  baptifm  has  fome  evident  likenefs  to  it. 

Now  I  alk  the  reader,  and  am  willing  Mr.  A.  fhould 
hear  me,  firft,  What  likenefs  is  there  between  infant  fprink- 
ling,  or  afFuiion,  and  what  he  calls  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  or  a  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  which,  fays  he,  is  the 
caufe  of  fpiritual  death,  burial  and  refurreftion  ?  Is  there 
any  likenefs  between  them  I  Chrift  afuires  us  that  we  know 
not  hoiu  the  Spirit  goes,  or  comes,  in  regeneration  ;  there 
can,  therefore,  be  no  evident  likenefs.  There  muft, 
however,  be  fome  evident  likenefs  between  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or  regeneration,  and  the  fprinkling 
or  pouring  water  on  an  infant ;  or  one  of  thefe  two  things 
is  true  ;  either,  firft,  The  apoftle  v/as  guilty  of  a  grofs  im- 
propriety in  likening  them  together  ;  or,  fecondly,  He  has 
not  likened  them  together,  as  Mr.  A.  tells  us  that  he  has. 
If  the  apoftle  have  not  compared  or  likened  them  together, 
then  infant  fprinkling,  or  aflufion,  is  not  gofpel  baptifm,  or 
elfe  one  of  the  following  things  is  true  ;  either,  firft,  There 
is  no  likenefs  between  water  baptifm  and  the  baptifm  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  as  Mr.  A.  tells  us  there  is  ;  or,  fecondly.  The 
apoftle,  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  is  not  fpeaking  of  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghojl,  wliere  Mr.  A.  fays  he  is.  Hence, 
Mr.  A.  hath  not  told  us  the  truth,  or  iifant  fprinkling  and 
qfufon  are  not  gofpel  baptifm.  Befides,  no  perfon,  in  the 
full  ufe  of  his  reafon,  can  fry  there  is  even  the  leajl  likenefs 
between  puititig  a  Utile  tvater  upon  a  child's  f  ice,  and  the  pro- 
duction of  a  natural  death,  burial  and  refurredlion.  Mr.  A. 
then  has  but  this  alternative,  either  to  relinquifli  his  bad 
caufe  as  loft,  or  coiifefs  his  v.rGng  ftatements,  forfake  his 
erroneous  pofitions,  take  new  ground,  and  fet  out  afrefh. 
No  wonder  Mr.  A.  tells  us,  that,  if  we  write  again,  our 
performances  will  not  be  entitled  to  notice,  unlefs  we  bring 
fomething  new,  or  give  the  controverfy  a  new  turn.  For, 
I  confefs,  were  I  on  his  ground,    I  (hould  prefer  any    new 

V 


30  Seco7id  Expofition  of 

thing,  and  any  new  turn,  rather  than  have  the  old,  tried, 
iul^ftantial  truths  brought  againfl:  me  again. 

2d.  But  I  have  another  queRion  to  put  to  the  reader. 
It  is  tliis.  Does  your  Bible  fay,  in  any  one  place,  io  much 
as  one  word  about  baptifm,  (whether  the  baptifm  of  water  or  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft)  as  being  the  caufe  of  death  to  fm,  fpiritual 
burial,  (unlefs  the  houfe  being  filled,  on  the  day  of  Pentc- 
coft,  with  the  divine  prefence  and  glory,  might  be  thus 
termed)  or  of  refurredion  to  newnefs  of  life  ?  It  mufl:  fay 
thus  fomeivhere,  or  this  muil  be  the  fentinicnt  of  the  Biblci 
or  Mr.  A.  hath  made  another  great  m'lflake,  and  was  hardly 
prudent  in  begging  me  to  notice  it.  Should  he  fay,  that, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecoft,  the  apoftles  were  fpiritually  bu- 
ried, that  is,  they  were  immerfed,  or  overwhelmed  in  the 
ever  memorable  affufions  of  the  Spirit,  then  he  becomes  a 
Baptift  at  once  ;  for  he  lays,  water  baptifm  is  a  fymbol,  or 
figure  of  it.  But,  if  he  fay,  that  he  intends,  by  the  bap*. 
tifm  cf  the  Holy  Ghoftj  his  regenerating  infiuences,  then  I 
have  another  queftion  to  put  to  the  reader — 

3d.  Does  your  Bible  ever  fpeak  of  regeneration,  or  con- 
verfion,  as  being  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  It  ap- 
pears, that  Mr.  A.  and  his  bretliren  have  gotten  a  kind  of 
baptifm  of  their  own  ;  a  kind  of  baptifm  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  which  contradicts  the  Bible  account  of  that  baptifm, 
nearly  as  much  as  do  their  fprinkling  and  affufion  for  bap- 
tifm. This  they  appear  to  have  invented,  to  jullify  them 
for  fetting  afide  the  gofpel  water  baptifm.  Thus  has  it  fre- 
quently happened,  fuch,  as  venture  to  depart  from  the 
good  old  Bible  way,  are  conftrained  to  invent  fome  new 
errors  to  cover  their  old  ones. 

I  wilh  to  make  a  few  obfervations,  and  then  (hall  quit 
this  part  of  my  reply  to  Mr.  A. 

1.  1  vi(h  to  know  of  him,  or  of  any  of  his  brethren, 
who  told  them,  that  to  be  dead  to  iln  is  to  be  baptized  of 
the  Holy  Gholl  ?  Rom.  vi.  2. 

2.  I  with  to  know  of  any  of  them,  if  they  be  able  to  tell 
mc,  who  gave  them  the  information,  that  to  be  baptized  in- 
to .Tcfus  Chrift  is  to  be  baptized  into  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  Rom.  vi.  3. 

3.  I  wiih  to  know  v.hether,  according  to  their  notion 
of  infant  baptifm,  their  children  are  not  baptized  into  Jefus 
Chvift  ;  and  then  vx-Jaether  all  tlieir  childrcii  are  baptized 
widi  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  For  fays  Paul,  So  nany  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jefus  Chrift  were  bapti/.cd  into  his 
dea*-!!. 


Mr.  Jujin's  Mi/ljkes.  31 

4.  I  wiflitobe  informed  by  any  of  them,  who  told  them, 
and  how  they  obtained  their  information,  that  to  be  buried 
with  Chrift  by  baptifm  into  death  is  the  lame  as  being  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghoft  i  Or,  to  pleafe  Mr.  A.  I  will  (late 
the  queftion  a  little  differently.  Who  told  him  and  his 
brethren,  that  the  effed  of  being  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghoft  is  to  be  buried  luii/j  Cbnj?  by  baptifm  ?  For  fays  Paul, 
Rom.  vi.  4,  We  are  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death. 
He  does  not,  however,  fiiy  a  word  of  this  being  the  effecl  of 
the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofl. 

5.  I  defire  to  know  who  told  them,  that  to  walk  in  new- 
nefs  of  life  was  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  or 
was  theeffed:  of  this  baptifm  ?  Rom.  vi.  4.  For  fays  Mr.  A. 
"  the  fpiritual,  internal,  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  exactly 
coincides  with  the  whole  of  this  reprefcntation."  Rom. 
vi.  I — 6. 

6.  I  wifn  to  know  of  Mr,  A.  or  of  any  of  his  brethren, 
whether  Peter,  John,  James,  and  the  reft  of  the  holy  breth- 
ren, who  were  afTembled  in  Jerufalem,  on  the  memorable 
morning  of  Pentecoft,  were  baptized  tiu'ice  by  the  baptifm 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ?  For  they  were  ra'ifzd  to  iwwnefs  of  life, 
long  before  that  morning  arofe  ;  and  Mr.  A.  tells  us,  that 
XohQ  rdiftd  X.0  neivnefs  of  life  is  the  effed  of  the  bapti;m  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft.  They  muft  therefore  have  been  thus  bap- 
tized long  before,  or  the  effeS  muft  have  preceded  the  caufe. 
To  underftand  which  would  puzzle  Mr.  A.  as  much  as  it 
did  Prefident  Edwards  to  underftand  the  felf-determining 
power  in  the  Arminians.  This,  however,  muft  be  under- 
ftood  and  explained,  or  elfe  they  will  not  be  able  to  clear 
themfelves  from  the  herefy  oi  fphitual  anabaptifm.  I'or  none 
of  them  v/ill  dare  deny,  but  the  difciples  were  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  on  the  morning  of  that  memorable 
day,  when  thoufands  were  converted  under  Peter's  fer- 
mon. 

7.  I  wifti  to  know  who  told  thefe  good  men,  that  to  be 
planted  in  the  likenefs  of  Chrift's  death  in  l)aptifm  is  the 
baptifm  of  the  rioly  Ghoft,  or  is  the  eftetft  of  it  ? 

8.  I  wifti  to  know  of  Mr.  A.  or  of  any  of  his  brethren, 
who  told  them,  that  to  be  buried  with  Chrift  in  baptifm  is 
to  be  baptized  in  the  Holy  GhoJ},  or  is  the  e^lcl  of  this  bap- 
tifm i     Col.  ii.  12. 

9»  I  defire  to  know  of  them,  who  gave  them  authority 
to  fay  and  teach  thefe  things  ?  We  find  not  a  word  of  all 
this  matter  in  all  the  Bible.  If  they  would,  any  of  them, 
be  confidered  as  minifters  of  Chrift,  they  ihould  teach  what 


32  Second  Expofition  of 

he  hath  commanded  them,  and  not  be  amufing  their  hear- 
ers and  the  pubhc  with  fuch  vain  things,  and  for  a  purpoie 
ftill  more  vain,  to  pervert  the  gofpel  of  Chrilt,  or,  at  beft, 
its  firft  ordinance  and  tlie  fubjeds  of  it. 

Perhaps  Mr.  A.  will  not  again  beg  me  to  attend  to  his 
diflindions  :  but  I  fhall,  if  the  Lord  give  me  opportunity, 
unlefs  he  and  his  brethren  ceafe  to  pervert  the  Scriptures  as 
they  have  hitherto  done. 

We  fhall  now  take  under  confideration  fome  other  things* 
which,  in  Mr.  A.'s  Letters  need  corre(5tion.  It  may  furprife 
the  public,  that  a  man  of  Mr.  A.'s  charadler,  and  good 
fenfe,  ihould  mifs  the  truth  at  every  ftep.  But  when  it  is 
confidered,  that  the  fide  which  he  defends  is  nothing  but 
falfehood  and  error,  the  furprife  vanilhes,  and  it  would 
)iave  been  unaccountable,  had  \\v.  done  otherwife,  and  yet 
been  confiftent  with  himfelf  and  caufe. 

Such  as  continue  in  tlicir  errors  will,  no  doubt,  be  dif- 
pleafed  with  me  for  expofing  him  and  them,  and  will  pro- 
bably wifh  to  hear  no  more  of  the  controverfy.  But  fo 
long  as  truth  is  better  than  error,  and  the  command  con- 
tinues, to  contend  earneftly  for  the  faith  which  was  once 
delivered  to  the  faints  ;  fo  long  muft  the  errors  of  the  er- 
roneous be  expofed. 

Some  of  the  remaining  errors  in  Mr.  A.'s  Letters,  which 
need   correction,  are  the  following  : 

I.  Says  lie  to  n  e  p.  7,  *•  Your  third  Letter  tome  is  now 
to  come  under  confideration. 

«♦  In  the  beginning  of  this  Letter,  you  make  pretenfions 
to  candour  and  fairnefs,  but  renounce  them  both  at  the  ve- 
ry next  ftep." 

I  think  myfelf  happy,  that  I  may  anfwer  for  myfelf,  and 
the  public  fhall  fee  liow  I  renounce  candour  and  fairnefs. 
He  gives  the  following  for  evidence.  ♦'  For  (fays  he)  you 
make  me  to  maintain  that  manifelt  unbelievers  are  proper 
and  gofpel  fubjeds  of  baptifm.  Thefe  are  your  ivords  again. 
J  ha've  /aid  no  fuch  thing."  This  is  Mr.  A.'s  accufation  : 
and  I  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  ftubborn  fafts,  and  to  com- 
mon fenfe,  if  he  have  not  faid  the  whole  which  I  have  laid 
to  his  charge  ;  and  whether  he  have  not  denied  the  plain 
matter  of  fadt,  that  he  might  excufe  himfelf,  and  charge 
me  with  renouncing  candour  and  fairnefs  P 

Says  Mr.  A.  "  What  I  maintain  is,  that  the  infa^s  of 
viiible  believers  are  gofpel  fubjeds  of  baptifm." 

We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  if  infants  of  viiiljle  believers, 
as  well  as  others,  be  not  manifejlly  unbeliever:  F  That  informs 


Mr.  Aujlin's  Mijiakes.  33 

ns,  that  man  is  born  like  a  ivild  afs-'s  colt.  It  does  not  ex- 
empt believers'  children  any  more  than  others.  Befides 
fays  our  Saviour,  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot 
fee  the  kingdom  of  God.  Is  Mr.  A.  an  Arminian,  or  a 
Wefleyan  Methodift,  and  fo  has  he  adopted  the  inventions 
of  men  to  pervert  thefe  texts  ?  If  he  have,  ftill  I  will  fhow 
the  public,  that  he  has  denied  a  plain  faft,  to  get  rid  of 
a  difficultj%  For,  in  the  fame  page,  and  in  the  preceding, 
he,  fpeaking  of  the  jailer,  and  of  his  houfehold,  charges  me 
with  prejumptuous  commtntsy  which,  fays  he,  are  calculated  to 
make  your  xmlearned  readers  conclude,  that  the  jailer's 
houfehold  are  faid  to  be  believers  as  well  as  himfelf.  Where- 
as the  evidence  from  the  ufe  of  this  participle  is  quite  the 
other  way."  Here  Mr.  A.  informs  us,  that  the  jailer's 
houfehold  were  baptized,  when  they  did  not  believe  ;  and 
charges  me  with  prefuraptuous  comments,  becaufe  I  held 
with  the  plain  Scripture  account  of  the  matter,  that  the 
jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  houfe.  Mr. 
A.  holds  that  the  houfehold  of  the  jailer  was  baptized, 
while  they  were  unbelievers,  and  that  this  is  ajuftification  of 
his  and  his  brethren's  pracftice.  Now  I  appeal  to  the 
common  fenfe  of  all  men,  if  unbelieving  houfeholds,  or  if  the 
unbelieving  members  of  a  manifejlly  unbelieving  houfehold  be  not 
manifejl  unbelievers.  If  they  be,  then  Mr.  A.  holds,  that 
maniftfi  unbelievers  are  proper  and  go/pel  Jubjcds  of  baptifm  ; 
or  elie  he  charges  the  Apoftles  with  baptizing  improper 
and  ungofpel  fubjefts.  For  he  holds,  that  they  baptized 
fuch,  and  charges  me  witli  prejumptuous  comments,  where  I 
fhow,  that  they  did  not  baptize  fuch  unfit  and  improper 
fubjeds.  I  now  appeal  to  every  man,  who  has  common, 
fenfe,  whetlier  Mr.  A.  has  not  contradicted  plain  matter  of 
fa<5t ;  denied  his  own  fentiment,  and  charged  me  unjuftly  ; 
and  all  this  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty  into  which  his  errors 
have  broui!:ht  him  ;  and  whether  he  does  not  hold  to  the 
unfcriptural  and  popifh  fentiment,  that  manifeji  unbelievers 
are  proper  and  go/pel  fubjecis  of  baptifm  ? 

2.  In  page  2  i,  fays  Mr.  A.  to  me,  "  In  p.  17,  you.  make 
a  very  unfair  ftatement.  You  fay,.  *  Befides  it  is  your  fen- 
timent, that  baptifm  is  to  be  obferved,  or  received,  when 
we  are  infants  ;  when  we  know  nothing  about  it.  How 
much  ferious  reverence  and  confcientioufncfs  infants  have, 
we  know  not !'  Is  this  fair  ?  Is  it  honeft  ?  You  have  omitted 
to  mention  our  adult  baptifms  entirely."  Truly,  I  have 
omitted  it,  but  will  now  mention  it,  and  cxpofe  the  whole 
bufmefs, 

D    2 


34  Second  Expofitiori  of 

I.  Mr.  A.'s  fentiment  is  exa(ftly  as  I  fat  it  dov^ni ;  buL 
I  did  not  expofe  the  whole.  For  his  fentiment  i^,  as  I  ob- 
fervcd,  that  baptifni  is  to  be  received,  when  we  arc  infants, 
when  we  know  nothing  about  it.  He  holds,  that  this 
ought  to  be  the  cafe  univerfally,  in  all  Chriftian  lands. 
For  it  is  his  fentiment,  that  all  parents,  where  tlic  gofpel 
is  preached,  ought  to  be  believers,  when  their  children  are 
born  ;  and  that  all  fuch  children  ought  to  be  baptized  or 
fprinkled  in  their  infancy.  Thus  he  holds,  that,  in  gofpel 
lands,  hU  ought  to  be  baptized  before  they  beheve  ;  and 
that  none  fhould  be  taught  till  after  they  are  baptized. 
Juft  the  contrary  from  what  Chrift  commanded,  and  the 
Scriptures  every  where  teach.  Thus  we  fee,  could  his 
error  have  its  perfeft  work,  how  ferioufly  they  would  rev- 
erence, and  how  confcientioully  they  would  obferve  the 
gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm.  They  would  fo  reverence  it, 
and  fo  confcientioully  obferve  it,  that  not  a  fingle  believer 
in  the  whole  nation  lliould  have  the  privilege  to  fubmit  to  it 
according  to  the  exprefs  command  of  our  Saviour.  No 
one  fhould  be  taught,  and  then  baptized  ;  but  all  fhould  be 
baptized,  and  then  taught. 

But,  2d.  Says  he,  "  You  have  omiL:ed  our  adult  bap- 
tifms  entirely."  I  have  ;  but  will  be  faulty  in  this  partic- 
ular no  longer.  Now,  for  their  adult  baptifms.  Wh;U; 
are  they  ?  The  reader  fliall  hear,  and  then  will  never  for- 
get them.  Their  adult  vaptilms  are,  when  a  mailer  of  a 
family  is  converted,  his  houfehold  of  adult  impenitents 
rnuft  be  baptized  as  well  as  the  believing  mafler.  This  is 
Mr.  A.'s  principle,  and  if  he  will  not  acknowledge  it,  I  will 
prove  it  to  him.  He  tells  us,  that  the  Philippian  jailer  be- 
lieved, that  his  houfehold  did  not,  and  yet,  that  they  were 
proper  fr.bje(51s  of  baptifm  ;  and  that  the  baptifms  of  fuch 
unbelieving  houfeholds  are  their  adult  baptifms.  Thefe. 
are  not  jyft  his  words,  but  thefe  are  his  fentiments,  not  de- 
tiuced  from  his  principles,  but  from  his  declarations  and 
afTertions,  as  the  reader  may  fee  by  confulting  his  Letters  to 
the  author.  Befides,  this  is  juft  in  agreement  with  their 
principles.  If  they  deny  this,  they  give  up  their  princi- 
ples, and  ftand  upon  nothing.  They  have  no  other  dc-* 
fcription  of  adult  baptifms  belonging  to  their  fyftem  ;  un- 
lefs  in  fome  rare  inflances,  a  heathen  bachelor  or  maid, 
without  a  family,  might  be  converted,  and  then  fuch  an 
adult  might  be  admitted  to  fprinkling. 

The  public  are  now  defired  to  judge,  with  what  propri- 
ety Mr.  A.  afieited,  in  his  firft  Letters,  faying,    «'  We  as 


Mr,  Aujlhis  Mifiakeu  35 

feriouflf  reverence,  and  confcientioufly  obferve  the  goipel 
ordinance  of  baptifm,  as  do  the  Buptilis."  Upon  this,  I  ob- 
ferved  to  him,  that  it  was  his  fentiment,  that  this  ordinance 
is  to  be  obierved  or  received  when  vv'e  are  infants,  when  we 
can  know  nothing  about  it.  Hov/  inuc]i  ferious  reverence 
and  confcientioulhefs  infants  have,  we  know  not.  To  this 
he  replies,  ■"  h  this  fair  ?  Is  it  houeft  ?"  Yes,  and  I  appeal 
to  the  Bible  and  to  the  common  fenf«  of  the  public,  if  the 
whole  truth,  fairly  laid  open,  would  not  have  made  hiqn  ap.^ 
pear  more  erroneous,  and  given  his  fentiments  a  worfe  hue  ? 
But  as  he  hath  faid,  *'  Is  this  fair  ?  Is  it  honed  V  he  is  now 
defired  to  inform  the  public  how  much  ferious  reverence,  and 
confcientioofnefs  the  infideljorunbelievingrioufeholds  of  con- 
verted marters,  or  parents  have  ?  Have  unbelieving  adulLs» 
whofe  hearts  are  hardened  by  experience  in  wickednefs,  any 
more  ferious  reverence  or  confcientioulhefs,  in  fubmitting 
to  baptifm,  at  the  command  of  their  mailer,  or  of  the  ofli,- 
ciating  pried,  than  have  infants  of  a  day  old  ?  Suppofe 
the  jail-keeper  in  Worceder  be  converted,  and  his  family, 
or  houfehold,  confid  of  half  a  dozen  of  unbelieving  adults, 
with  how  much  ferious  reverence  and  confcientioufnefs 
would  they  obferve  the  gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm  ? 
Should  they  fubmit  to  be  fprinklcd,  or  partially  waflied, 
or  have  Water  poured  upon,  them,  or  have  water  applied  to 
them  in  fome  other  way,  which  Mr.  A.,  might  fancy  to  bq 
gofpel  baptifm,  then,  might  the  fpet^-ators  behold  one  of  his 
adult  baptifms,  which  he  fays  I  have  omitted  entirely.  I 
confefs,  did  I  hold  to  fuch  adult  baptifms,  and  did  my  op^ 
ponent  negle<fl  to  mention  them,  I  would  never  complain 
of  fuch  omiflion,  unlefs  ray  judgment  were  what  it  is  not^ 
or  I  wifl^ed  my  fentiments  to  be  had  in  everlading  re- 
proach. 

Let  the  Bible  dodrine  of  gofpel  baptifm,  let  the  Bible 
fads,  relating  to  gofpel  baptifm,  let  common  fenfe,  as  to 
gofpel  baptifm,  judge  whether  Mr.  A.'s  adult  baptifms  be 
any  way  preferable  before  the  heathen  rites,  practlfed  in, 
honour  of  Jupiter,  or  of  other  heathen  gods  !•  The  Bible 
knows  nothing  about  fuch  adult  baptiiras,  as  he  and-  his 
brethren  advocate.  The  faft  is,  they  have  lod  the  idea  of 
gofpel  baptifm,  and  of  the  fubjeifVs  too  ;  and  now  confider 
themfelves  judified  in  contending  earnedly  for  the  com- 
mandments and  tra<litions  of  men. 

3.  Says  Mr.  A.  page  26,  ♦'  There  are  fome  men,  fir, 
who  have  not  a  jot  of  oil,  nor  a  grain  of  balm,  in  their 
velfels,  who  yet  have  infinite  zeal  about  things  oi  compar- 


■36  Secofid  Expofition  of 

atlve  indlfFerence.  The  lefs  determinate  evidence  there  is, 
the  more  pofuive  do  they  feem  to  be."  By  the  connexio: 
in  which  this  paiFage  is  introduced,  it  is  manifetl  that  th' 
Baptiils  are  intended.  But  v/e  appeal  to  the  public,  if  Mr. 
A.  have  not  miitaken  their  characleriftics.  "  Infinite  zeal 
(fays  he)  about  things  of  comparative  indifference."  Who 
more  zealous  than  Mr.  A.  and  his  brethren,  about  baptifm  I 
Yet  they,  efpecially  he,  confefs  it  to  be  of  fuch  comparative- 
indifference,  that  it  may  be  adminiftered  at  one  time,  or  at 
another  time,  or  at  no  time  ;  and  that  it  may  be  in  one  toaj/f 
or  in  another  way,  or  in  almojl  any  way.  It  is  not  thus  with 
the  Baptifts.  "  i  he  lefs  determinate  evidence  (fays  he) 
there  is,  the  mure  pofitive  do  they  feem  to  be."  Nothing 
can  better  apply  to  Mr.  A.  than  does  this  ;  for  I  fhowed- 
him,  in  my  Letters,  that  he  had  no  determinate  evidence, 
nor  even  probable  evidence,  in  favour  of  his  errors ;  yet 
he  is,  if  pofTible,  more  pofitive  than  before.  *'  They  plant 
themfelves  (fays  he)  on  an  elevation  enveloped  in  vapours, 
and  yet  fancy  that  they  only  have  the  feeing  faculty."  We 
can  fee,  that  to  be  baptized  in  the  river,  is  not  to  be  fprink- 
led  out  of  it.  We  can  fee,  that  to  have  our  bodies  ivajhed 
with  pure  or  finiple  water,  is^  a  different  thing  from  having 
a  little  put  upon  our  faces.  We  can  fee,  that  for  converts 
to  be  baptized  when  they  hear  the  word  gladly,  is  not  the 
fame  as  to  be  fprinkled  before  they  can  undcrftand  one 
word  from  another.  W^e  can  fee  fome  difference  between 
burying  believers  with  Chrift  in  the  very  folemn  and  ^\^- 
nilicant  ordinance  of  baptifrn,  and  the  fprinkling  or  pour- 
ing water  on  adult  infidels  becaufe  their  mailers  believe.. 
We  do  not  claim  exclufive  poffeffion  of  the  feeing  faculty  :. 
we  believe  Mr.  A.  has  it,  but  widi  relation  to  golpel  bap- 
tifm, will  not  ufe  it. 

Again,  fays  he,  "They  make  a  thoufand  times  more- 
fufs  about  the  mode  of  a  thing,  about  converfion  to  that 
mode,  and  the  putting  in  praftice  that  mode,  waiting 
months  to  give  it  publicity,  and  fending  from  Dan  to 
Beerfheba  for  agents  to  be  employed  about  it,  than  if  all 
tlie  inhabitants  of  Louifiana  were  converted  to  Ghriftian- 
ity."  !  !  This  we  believe  to  be  a  very  ralli  untruth,  of 
wliicli  Mt.  a.  mull  repent  in  the  prefent  or  future  world. 

4.  The  public  will  excufe  me,  though  in  this  place  I 
may  prefent  them  with  a  (juotation  of  unufual  length.  In 
my  judgment,  it  is  expedient,  in  the  prefent  debate,  to  be 
liberal  in  quotations.  My  reafons  are  two :  one  is,  that 
my  opponents  £h.all  have  no  plaufible  obje<5lion  to  mak*, 


Mr.  Aujim*s  Mijlakcs.  37 

that  their  fentiment  is  not  fairly  ftated  ;  the  other  is,  that 
then  very  many  of  my  readers  will  dii'cover  for  themfelves 
the  fallacy  and  weaknefs  of  my  opponents'  arguments,  by 
infpedion,  before  they  are  particularly  expofed.  It  would 
pleafe  me  well  to  be  ufed  in  the  fame  way  ;  then  would 
the  readers,  on  both  fides  of  the  queftion,  pofTefs  a  more 
generous  opportunity  to  know  the  truth:  but  thofe  who 
contend  with  me  v.'ill  ufe  their  pleafure  in  this  matter. 

The  quotation  is  in  pages  37  and  38,  and  in  the  follow- 
ing words : — 

"  The  fecond  proof  which  I  advanced  againft  your  doc- 
trine of  the  exclufive  meaning  of  the  word  laptizo,  is  the 
paflage  in  i  Cor.  x.  2,  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofes 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea.  Here  your  reply  is  founded 
altogether  on  the  force  of  the  prepofitions  wukr.,  through,  and 
in.  Prepofitions  are  every  thing  witli  you.  But  how  are 
Vv-eto  underftand  them  ?  Beyond  all  doubt,  the  declai-ation 
of  the  apoftle  is  founded  upon  the  fact  in  the  Mofaic  narra- 
tive. This  you  have  not  dared  to  look  in  the  face.  You 
fkulk  under  prepofitions,  in  the  hope  they  will  Ihield  you 
from  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are  able  to  deted  your  fophifms. 
But  you  muft  come  out.  You  have  committed  yourfelf 
before  the  public.  You  have  impofed  on  the  credulity  of 
your  unlearned  readers,  by  indefenfible  affertions,  which 
you  do  not  fupport,  and  muft  be  rebuked  for  your  temerity. 
This  text  alone  is  fufficient  to  confound  all  thofe  affertions. 
The  apoftle  fpeaks  of  the  whole  multitude  of  Ifrael,  and 
comprehends  every  individual.  All  our  fathers.  Now 
will  you  undertake  to  fay  before  the  public,  that  all  thefe 
fathers,  individually,  were  immerfed  in  the  cloud,  vWien  the 
facred  narrative  fays,  Exod.  xiv.  19,  And  the  pillar  of  the- 
cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and  ftood  behind  them  ; 
and  it  came  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the 
camp  of  Ifrael  ?  Will  you  fay  that  they  were  individually 
immerfed  in  the  fea,  when  the  facred  narrative  is,  verfe  22, 
And  the  children  of  Ifrael  went  into  the  midfl:  of  the  fea 
upon  dry  ground,  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them 
on  their  iight  hand  and  on  their  left.  If,  by  the  fea  be 
meant  the  bed  of  the  waters,  that  was  dry  ground  under 
their  feet  ;  if  the  waters  thcmlelvcs,  they  were  on  each  ilde 
of  the  congregation  as  a  wall." 

I  will  here,  in  the  firft  place,  give  the  public  a  particular 
ftatement  of  the  fads  which  caufed  the  good  man  to  fpeak 
fo  fmaitly,  and  to  uffert  things  fo  roundly,  and  thea  I  Ihall 


38  Second  Expcfition  of 

endeavour  to  eipofe  his  errors,  with  which  the  quotation  h 
crowded. 

The  accurate  ftatement  now  follows.  In  his  firfl:  Let- 
ters to  me,  page  57,  his  words  arc,  "  Another  cafe  in 
which  the  word  baptlzo  is  undeniably  ufed  to  convey  an 
idea  entirely  different  from  that  of  complete  immerfion, 
and  which,  for  fome  reafon  beft  known  to  yourfelf,  you 
have  thought  proper  to  omit,  occurs  in  i  Cor.  x.  2,  And 
were  all  baptized  [ebaptizantu)  unto  Mofes  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  fca."  To  this  I  replied,  page  42,  thus  : — «'  Here 
let  Paul  explain  himfelf,  or  let  the  preceding  verfe  explain 
what  this  means.  The  preceding  verfe  is.  Moreover,  breth- 
ren, I  would  not  that  ye  (hould  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our 
fathers  were  under  the  cloudy  and  all  palfed  through  the  fea. 
Then  follows  verfe  2,  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Mofes  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  fea.  How  does  this  undeniably  convey 
an  idea  entirely  different  from  that  of  complete  imm.erfion  ? 
It  looks  to  me  fomewliat  like  the  fame  idea.  It  certainly 
has  the  appearance  of  being  overwhelmed,  or  completely 
encompalfed.  Tliey  were  all  under  tlie  cloud,  they  all 
paffed  through  the  fea  ;  they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  fea.  This  your  undeniable  evidence  againft  the  idea 
of  immerfion,  appears,  upon  the  very  face  of  it,  to  favour, 
ftrongly  to  favour,  the  very  truth  which  you  brought  it  to 
deflroy." 

We  will  now  attend  to  the  errors  which  he  hath  given  us 
within  the  limits  of  one  paragraph. 

1.  "  Here  (fays  he)  your  reply  is  founded  altogether 
upon  the  force  of  prepofitions." 

Anjiver.  The  force  of  my  reply  was  founded  upon  the 
words  of  the  apoftle ;  I  was  difpofed  to  let  him  explain 
himfelf.  Mofes  faid  nothing  about  baptifm,  nor  of  the 
fathers  being  baptized  unto  him,  either  in  the  cloud  or  in 
the  fea  ;  but  as  Paul  had  brought  forward  this  manner  of 
exprcflion,  and  as  he  only  had  thus  done,  I  confidered  it  but 
reafonable  to  allow  Paul  to  explain  himfelf.  But  as  Mr. 
A.  contrary  from  all  reafonable  men,  will  not  fuffer  a  man, 
even  the  apofUe,  to  explain  himfelf,  and  treats  me  not  very 
civilly  for  my  referring  die  matter  to  Paul,  we  will  there- 
fore hear  Mr.  A. 

2.  Says  he,  "  Prepofitions  are  every  thing  with  you. 
But  how  are  we  to  underftand  them  ?  Beyond  all  doubt, 
the  declaration  of  die  apoftle  is  founded  upon  the  fadl  in 
the  Mofaic  narrative.  This  you  have  not  dared  to  look  ia 
the  face." 


Mr.  Aujlins  Mi/iakes.  39 

Anjiver.  Is  it  with  me,  or  with  the  apoftle,  he  is  con- 
tending ?  I  have  made  no  prepofitions.  I  added  none  to 
thofe  uled  by  the  apoftle.  I  juft  fet  to  view  the  text,  as 
Paul  delivered  it.  "  Beyond  all  doubt,  (fays  Mr.  A.)  thefe 
prepofitions  are  to  be  underftood  by  the  fa<5l  in  the  Mofaic 
narrative."  Suppofe  this  to  be  true,  yet  is  not  Paul's  ei- 
pofition  of  Mofes's  narrative  as  good  as  Mr.  A.'s  ?  But, 
fays  he,  *<  This  (the  Mofaic  narrative)  you  have  not  dared 
-to  look  in  the  fiice."  This  is  Mr.  A.'s  (lieer  miftake ;  for 
I  truft,  through  grace  given  unto  me,  there  is  not  a  fmgle 
text  in  all  the  good  word  of  God,  but  I  dare  look  it  in  the 
face,  and  am  willing  to  underfland  its  full  import,  with 
a  defire  to  obey  it. 

I  fliall  now  endeavour  to  look  his  two  formidable  texts 
full  in  the  face.  The  firfl  is  in  Exod.  xiv.  19.  And  the 
pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and  flood 
behind  them  ;  and  it  came  between  the  camp  of  the  Egyp- 
tians and  the  camp  of  Ifrael."  This  explains  one  part  of 
what  Paul  fays,  namely,  Thit  all  our  fathers  were  under  the 
cloud.  The  pillar  of  cloud  went  from  before  their  face  and 
ftood  behind  them.  Then  it  paffed  over  all  of  them,  as  it 
palFed  from  front  to  rear.  This  may  figuratively  reprefent  a 
tomb-flonCf  which  lies  over  the  ^<hole  grave.  Very  well ;  and 
what  is  the  other  text  which  I  dare  not  look  in  the  face  ? 
It  is  this,  verfe  22,  And  the  children  of  Ifrael  went  into  the 
midil  of  the  fea  upon  dry  ground,  and  tlie  'waters  were  a 
\vaU  unto  thevi  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left.  This 
gave  Paul  an  occafion  to  fay.  And  all  pailed  through  the 
\':i..  Here  is  the  Mofaic  narrative.  He  found  that  the 
fea,  or  the  luaters  of  the  fca,  were  a  wall  on  each  fide  of  all 
tie  ffraelites.  Put  thefe  walls  and  the  figurative  tomb-flone 
together,  they  would  be  foniething  of  a  figurative  tomb  ; 
there  would  be  fonie  refemblance.  Hence  Paul  might,  in 
a  figurative  way  of  fpeaking,  without  olfending  any,  except 
the  oppofers  of  gofpel  bapcifm,  fay,  And  were  all  baptized 
unto  Ivlofes  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  fea.  The  cloud  and 
fea,  taken  together,  enconipaifed  them,  or  overwhelmed 
them,  as  they  were  following  Mofes  their  leader  ;  and  in 
the  mean  time  they  experienced  a  very  memorable  deliver- 
ance, which,  as  a  figure,  points  out  the  deliverance  from 
lln,  or  the  falvation  by  Jefus  Chrift,  even  as  water  baptifm 
does.'  Now  we  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  the  ftubborn  fads 
related,  to  common  fenfe,  to  any  thing  and  to  every  thing 
which  will  fpeak  the  truth,  if  Mr.  A.  had  not  better  have 
done  nothing  in  defence  of  his  errors,  than  to  bring  fuch 


40  Seco7id  ExpofiiUn  of 

texts  as  thefe  to  the  confideration  of  the  public.  For  docj 
not  this  very  matter  look  a  little  like  immerfion,  the  gofpel 
baptifm  ?  And  where  is  there  the  leall  refemblance  of  his 
popifti  notion  of  pouring  or  fprinkling  ?  It  would  be  ridic- 
ulous to  fay,  that  all  the  Ifraelites  were  fprinkledj  or  had 
water  poured  upon  them,  either  from  a  pillar  of  fire  or 
from  die  fixed  walls  of  water  on  each  fide.  This  is  Mr, 
A.'s  artillery,  by  which  he  has,  if  we  may  believe  his  own 
words,  confounded  all  my  afl'ertions,  and  taken  aivay  my 
defenftve  armour  ;  or,  this  is  fufficient  to  do  it. 

3.  But,  fays  he,  "  You  Jhulk  under  prepofitions,  in  the 
hope  they  will  fliield  you  from  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are 
able  to  deted  your  fophifms."  The  public  will  judge 
whether  I  have  Jhulhed  under  prepofitions,  or  under  any 
thing  elfe,  or  whether  I  have  any  occafion  to  for  the  prefent. 
But  from  what  does  Mr.  A.  fuppofe  I  am  Jlulk'mg  ?  He 
plainly  tells  me,  "  From  the  eyes  of  thofe  who  are  able  to 
detetfl:  my  fophifms."  I  appeal  to  every  impartial  reader 
of  his  Letters,  whether  he  has,  in  either  of  his  pamphlets 
detected  any  of  my  fophifms,  or  fliown  me  to  be  guilty  of 
one.  He  has  told  me  in  the  public  hearing,  page  43, 
*•  That  he  pitted  me"  and  in  page  20,  "  that  he  luoulJ  be  merci- 
ful and  not  expofty   too  much,   the  nakedncfs  of  the   landy'    &c. 

But  where  has  he  proved  me  guilty  of  a  fophifm,  or  any 
confiderable  miftake,  or  one  mifreprefentation,  or  one  /r/- 
JJirig,  unmardy  argument  ? 

4.  But,  fays  he,  "  Tou  mvfl  come  out,  Tou  have  commit- 
ted yourfelf  before  the  public.  Tou  have  impofed  on  the  credulity 
of  your  unlearned  readers,  by  indefenftble  afjertions,  ivhich  you  do 
not  fupport,  and  mufl  be  rebuked  for  your  temerity." 

lAnfiL'er.  I  confefs  I  feel  myfelf,-4iappy,  that  I  live  in  a 
land  of  freedom,  where  I  am  not  afraid  to  come  out,  and 
defire  Mr.  A.  to  make  good  his  charge.  Let  him  fhow,  if  he 
be  able,  in  what  I  liave  committed  myfelf  before  the  public. 
Let  hhn  ihow,  if  lie  can,  for  I  invite  him  to  expofe  me,  and 
I  afk  of  him  neither  pity  nor  mercy,  fo  as  to  keep  back  one 
truth,  by  which  he  can  expofe  jny  impofition  upon  the  cre- 
dulity of  my  unlearned  readers,  by  fo  much  as  one  indefen- 
fible  afTertion.  If  I  have  not  done  this  in  a  fingle  inftance, 
but  do  fupport  my  alfertions,  and  Mr.  A.  be  net  able  to 
galnfay  them,  but  by  luch  weak  and  beggarly  arguments 
Si%  pidures  in  his  Bible,  calling  to  the  fpirits  of  dead  men,  or 
telling  ftories  al>out  a  Baptift  minifter's  praying  too  loud. 
Then  I  a{k  for  what  temerity  I  am  to  be  rebuked  by  him. 
Mr.  A.  ought  to  remember,  that   we   do  not  live  where 


Mr.  AuJiiiLS  Mijiakes.  41 

the  mouths  of  tlie  baptized  church  are  flopped  by  prifons, 
fires,  racks  and  gibbets.  Truth  begins  to  break  forth  with 
brightnefs.  The  God  of  the  baptized  church  will  defend 
her,  and  his  plagues  begin  to  be  poured  upon  Antichrift  ; 
and  fuch  of  God's  people  a.s  do  not  hear  his  voice,  and 
come  out  of  her  fpeedily,  may  receive  not  a  little  of  tbefe 
plagues. 

5.  For  a  general  anfwer  to  Mr.  A.'s  reply  to  my 
expofmg  his  erroneous  notions  of  d'laphorou  bapujmois 
Heb.  ix.  10.  the  public  are  referred  to  my  Letters  to  him, 
p.  43,  44,  and  45.  But  as  he  confiders  himfelf  to  have 
gained  fome  advantage  from  the  ule  of  the  word  diapho- 
rois  in  a  different  connexion,  fome  fmall  attention  muft 
be  paid  to  it.  His  words  are,  "  The  Greek  word  is  ufed 
but  in  one  other  place  in  the  New-Teftamer.t  ;  that  is  in 
Rom.  xii.  6.  Having  therefore  gifts  differing,  dlaphoruy 
according  to  the  grace  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy  or 
miniftry,  &c.     Thefe  gifts,  fays  he,  are  different  in  kind." 

The  following  obfervations  will  fhow,  that  the  text,  Rom. 
xii.  6.  and  the  word  diaphora  as  there  ufed,  will  afford  him 
no  help. 

1.  For,  to  fay  the  lead,  it  is  a  very  doubtful  thing, 
whether  the  gifts,  differing  according  to  the  grace  given,  be 
different  hinds  of  gifts,  or  d'^fferent  /pedes  of  ^&  fame  kind  of 
fpiritual  gifts.  Indeed  to  me  it  is  no  doubtful  cafe  at  all. 
For  there  are  different  kinds  of  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  Such 
SiS  gifts  effeniially  conneifted  v.'ith  xhe  finner^s  falvatlon,  mirac- 
kIcus  gifts,  and  edifying  gifts.  Thofe  gifts  of  which  Paul  is 
fpeaking,  Rom.  xii.  6,  7.  are  of  the  latter  kind,  and  differ- 
ent fpecies  of  that  kind.  This  text  is  therefore  nothing  to 
his  purpofe. 

2.  But  grant  it,  if  he  choofe,  that  the  gifts  fpoken  of 
are  different  in  kind  ;  yet  "■-  will  not  follow,  as  he  fuppofes, 
that  the  fame  adjedive,  in  Heb.  ix.'io.  muft  mean  different 
kinds  of  baptifms.  It  might  in  one  cafe  mean  different 
fpecies  of  the  fame  kind,  and  in  another  different  kinds. 
So  it  would  prove  nothing  to  his  purpofe,  even  fuppofe  it 
meant  jufl  as  he  fays. 

3.  But,  fuppofe  farther,  that  the  ufe  of  the  word  dia* 
phora,  Rom.  xii.  6.  would  prove,  that  in  Heb.  ix.  lo.  the 
apoftle  is  fpeaking  of  different  kinds  of  baptifms,  then  it 
would  confound  Mr.  A.'s  whole  argument  from  the  text, 
as  to  gofpel  baptifm,  or  worfe  ;  for  then  he  mull  fay  one 
of  thefe  two  things ;  either,  firfl,  that  it  hath  nothing  t« 


42  Second  Expofition  of 

do  with  gofpel  baptifm  ;  or  fecondly,  that  there  are  difFer-  | 
ent  kinds  of  gofpel  baptifms.  If  he  fay  the  fiift,  that  it 
hath  nothing  to  do  with  gofpel  baptifm,  then  it  would  con- 
found his  argument,  for  then  he  would  all  this  while  have 
been  arguing  from  a  topic  which  hath  nothing  to  do  with 
the  fubjeifl.  If  he  fay  the  other,  that  there  are  different 
kinds  of  gofpel  baptifms,  then  he  dees  wcrfe  than  give  up 
his  whole  argument  ;  for  he  implicitly  charges  the  apof- 
tle  with  falfehood,  and  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifl  with  impofi- 
tion  and  iieghgence.  He  implicitly  charges  the  apoftle 
with  falfehood  ;  for  Paul  exhorts  the  Ephefian  Chriftians 
to  unity,  and  ufes  as  one  argument  to  this,  that  there  is 
but  one  Lord,  one  faith,  cm  lapttjm.  Now  if  there  be  (''ij'tr- 
ent  kinds  of  gofpel  baptifms,  Paul  muft  have  fpoken  falfe- 
ly,  with  a  defign,  no  deiibt,  to  deceive.  But  this  is 
not  the  worft  vhich  Mr.  A.  d(  cs.  Ke  implicitly  charges 
our  Loid  Jefus  Chrift  with  impofiticn  and  negligence  ; 
for  our  Lord  knew  how  to  fpcak  in  fuch  plain  language, 
that  his  poor,  ignorant  and  devout  followers  might  under- 
ftand  him.  But  inftead  of  doing  fo,  (if  Mr.  A.  be  correct) 
he  fpeaks  in  fuch  ambiguous  and  uncertain  language,  that 
for  leveral  of  the  fir  ft  centuries,  no  one  uuderftood  him, 
and  none  were  certain  that  they  underflood  him  to  mean, 
or  that  he  did  mean,  by  gofpel  baptifm  any  thing  fliort  of 
Immerfion,  till  Pope  Clennnt  tlie  I'ifth,  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  arofe  and  informed  the  world,  \.\rAX.  fprinkling  fliould 
be  valid  and  gofpel  baptifm  :  And  indeed  had  it  not  been 
for  Mr.  Auftinof  Worcefler,  the  Chriftian  world  would  not 
have  known,  to  this  day,  that  tliere  were  different  kinds  of 
gofpel  baptifms.  Thus  according  to  Mr.  A.  our  blefled 
Lord  and  Saviour  (fliocking  to  fay)  has  impofed  upon  his 
ignorawt  followers.  Not  only  lo,  but  the  compaflionate 
and  all-wife  Saviour  hath  gi\vn  the  law  of  cofpei  baptifna 
in  fuch  equivocal  and  uncertain  terms,  that  fo  focn  as  his 
followers  come  to  know  any  thing  about  letters,  they  muft 
be  contending  about  what  it  is.  For  it  could  not  but  be 
ex.pe<5led  that  fome  of  the  more  ignorant  ones  vould  con- 
tend for  the  old  way  ^^Ilich  was  piadifed,  with  fiw  cj;cep- 
tions,  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  Yes,  and  not  only  fo,  but 
Matthew,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  and  Paul,  and 
Peter,  have  agreed  together  in  keeping  us  ignorant.  For 
wherever  and  whenever  tliey  liave  fpoken  of  gofpel  bap- 
tifm, they  have  uniformly  i'poken  of  it,  when  they  have 
mentioned  any  explanatory  circumftance  about  it,  as  though 
it  were  one  thirg,  and  as  though  that  one  thing  were  im- 


Mr.  Aujlin's  Mijiakes.  43 

merfion.  Mat.  iii.  6.  tells  us,  that  the  penitents  were  bap- 
tized  in  Jordan.  Mark  tells  us,  i.  5.  that  they  were  baptiz- 
ed In  the  riviT  of  Jordan.  Luke  informs  us,  that  when  the 
ordinance  of  baplifm  was  adminiftered,  they  not  only  came 
fo  the  wafer,  but  went  into  it.  Adts  vlii.  John  gives  us  to 
uuderiland,  that  baptifm  was  adminiftered  in  a  certain 
place,  becaufe  there  was  much  luater  there.  John  iii.  23, 
Paul  tells  us,  that  as  many  as  were  baptized  into  Jefus 
Chrifi,  were  buried  and  raifed  with  Chrift  in  the  ordinance. 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  Peter  tells  us  that  baptifm  is  .!, 
figure  of  our  falvation,  anfwering  to  the  figure,  the  ark,  in 
•which  Noah  was  faved.  Chap.  iii.  21.  of  his  firft  epillle. 
Now  all  thefe  have  agreed  together  to  deceive  us,  if  it  be 
a  deception,  and  to  make  us,  poor,  ignorant  creatures,  who 
have  not  come  to  maturity  of  judgment,  correElnefs  of  know!' 
edge,  and  Jlahility  of  faith,  believe,  that  gofpel  baptifm  is 
but  one  thing,  and  that  one  thing  is  immcnfion,  in  the  name 
of  th'i  Father,  &c.  Whereas  they  have  not  faid  fo  much 
as  one  word  ^.howt  fprinhling  or  pouring  being  the  matter  of 
gofpel  baptifm,  or  given  fo  much  as  one  circumflancc; 
which  makes  it  look  as  though  fprinkling  or  pouring  ware 
ever  either  commanded  or  pradtifed.  Indeed  had  not.  Pupe 
Clemont,  in  the  year  i  305,  have  told  us  that  fprinkling.  was 
valid,  fcriptural,  -goipel  baptifm,  no  Chriftian  ivt  the  firtt 
eighteen  hundred  years  of  Chriftianity,  would  have  known 
that  it  was  fo  ;  and  all  might  have  proceeded  on  in  their 
ignorance,  and  have  believed,  that  as  there  were  but  one 
IjOrd,  one  faith,  io  there  was  but  otie  valid,  fcriptural,  gofpel 
baptifm.  In  much  the  fame  ftate  of  ignorance  might  the 
Chrillian  world  have  now  been,  with  refpeft  to  another 
important  matter,  had  not  Mr.  A.  been  raifed  up  to  inftruft 
us,  that  there  are  different  kinds  of  gofpel  baptifms.  Does 
n.")t  this  bufinefs  of  Mr.  A.  do  worfe  than  confound  his 
argument  ?  Does  it  not  make  his  Popilh  baptifms  look 
worfe  than  it  would  for  him  to  give  up  his  argument  from 
Heb.  ix.  10?  In  fiiort,  had  he  not  better  have  taken  my 
advice,  if  he  would  m.iintain  his  fide,  to  fay  nothing  about 
it? 

6.  We  will  now  attend  to  Mr.  A.'s  laft  and  mod  formi- 
dable  argument  againft  immerfion,  as  being  the  only  gof- 
pel baptifm.  As  this  Li/}  and  main  argument  is  bat  the  old 
Antichrijiian  argument,  with  a  new  drefs,  it  might  receive 
but  little  notice,  were  it  not  that  by  repeatedly  turning  it 
over  before  the  public,  they  may,  one  after  another,  fee  the 
mark  of  the  beaft   upon  it.     Another    confidcration    may 


44  Second  Expofiion  of 

render  it'advlfable  to  pay  fome  attention  to  it  ;  and  it  is 
this  :  This  their  Jirjl  and  lajl  argument  is  the  only  argu- 
ment for  which  they  have  even  a  plaufible  pretence.  It 
was  the  principal  argument  which  Cyprian  in  the  third 
century  ufed  for  fprinkling,  or  afFufion  ;  and  it  is  the  laft 
which  Mr.  A.  ufes  in  tlie  nineteenth.  Cyprian  doubted  its 
validity  ;  but  Mr.  A.  is  fomewhat  confident  that  it  will 
anfwer. 

We  will  now  hear  his  argument. 

vSays  he,  page  40,  41,  42,  "To  conclude  this  part  of  the 
controverfy  on  the  mode  of  baptifm,  omitting  the  much 
that  might  be  faid  in  favour  of  fprinkling  and  afFufion,  as 
both  warranted  in  the  fcriptures,  I  will  content  myfelf  with 
one  remark  ;  and  that  is  upon  the  impraci'ual'dity  of  the 
ordinance  according  to  your  account  of  it.  In  befieged 
cities,  where  there  are  thoufands  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
fands  of  people  ;  in  fandy  deferts,  like  fome  parts  of  Af- 
rica, Arabia  and  Paleftine,  and  in  fome  northern  regions, 
where  the  ftreams  and  the  ponds,  if  there  be  any,  are  Ihut 
up  by  impenetrable  ices ;  and  in  fevere  and  extenfive. 
droughts,  like  that  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahab  ; 
fufficiency  of  water  for  animal  fubfiftence  is  almoft  unpro. 
curable.  In  fome  cafes  it  is  entirely  fo  ;  infomuch  that 
millions  of  human  beings  have  fuffered  great  diftrefs  by 
thirft.  Now  fuppofe  God  fhould,  according  to  the  pre« 
didions  of  the  prophets,  pour  out  plentiful  effufions  of  his 
Spirit,  fo  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  thefe  regions  or 
cities  fhall  be  born  in  a  day  ;  upon  your  hypotheus  there 
is  an  abfolute  i,ppclTibility  they  ihould  be  born  into  ths 
kingdom,  while  there  is  this  fcarcity  of  water;  and  this 
may  laft  for  months  ;  yea,  as  long  as  they  live.  And  thefe 
thoufands  and  hundreds  of  thoufands  of  Chriftians,  mud 
remain  all  this  while,  and  perhaps  die,  without  having 
cnce  the  confolatton  of  fupping  with  their  Redeemer. 
Now  it  muft  require  very  clear  evidence  to  convince  me, 
that  the  eifence  of  baptifm  lies  in  that  which,  in  fo  many 
cafes  of  this  kind,  muft  defciit  the  very  defign  of  it;  and 
that  baptifm  is  ever  an  indifpenfable  prerequifitc  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  moreover  is  altogether  unlike  what 
we  find  on  the  face  of  apoftolic  practice." 

Thus  fays  Mr.  A.  in  the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century  ; 
and  what  does  it  all  come  to  ?  The  following  remark  may 
fliow. 

I.  The  whole  of  it  is  argumenfum  aa  pa/fiones,  that  is, 
an  argument  addrelfed  to  the  paffions  and  prejudices  of  men. 


Mr.  Aujiin's  Mijiakes.  45 

2.  We  muft  make  Chrift's  pofuive  inftitutions  bow  to 
our  convenience  jufl  when  it  fuits  us,  becaufe  in  fome  pof- 
fible  cafes,  which  have  never  yet  happened,  and  never  will, 

we  could  not  be  baptized  according   to  the  comnnand  and 
pattern  given,  with  refpedt  to  that  ordinance. 

3.  God  may,  not  according  to  tlie  predidions  of  the 
prophets,  give  a  great  rain  from  the  upper  fprings,  and  fliut 
up  the  lo'w:;r  ones,  fo  that  a  nation  or  city  may  ba  bora  ia 
a  day,  and  there  be,  at  the  tim^,  not  water  fufficient  to 
baptize  them,  therefore  baptifm  cannot  always  mean  bap- 
tifm,  that  is,  immerfion  ;  but  mud  fometimes  mean  ran- 
tifm,  that  is,  fprinklhig. 

4.  If-  thoafands  and  hundreds  of  thoufands  fli ould  be 
born,  on  that  very  day  in  which  they  had  fpent  the  laft 
of  the  water,  which  the  city,  or  fandy  defert  contained, 
what  would  Mr.  A.  do  then  ?  Would  he  not  do  as  fome 
of  the  popilh  monies  are  faid  to  have  done,  baptize  them 
with  fand  ? 

5.  But  there  is  another  difficulty.  Suppofe  their  vines 
fliould  not  yield  their  fruit,  what  would  he  do  then,  as  to 
the  fecond  gofpel  ordinance  ?  No  doubt  he  would  fubllitute 
water,  or  fome  other  liquid,  if  he  had  any  ;  for  if  he  may, 
to  fuit  the  times,  change  the  very  efTence  of  one  ordinance, 
he  may,  no  doubt,  change  the  element  of  another.  But 
fuppofe  he  had  no  fubftitute,  fo  that  it  would  be  utterly 
impoffible  to  fap  with  his  Redeemer;  then  Mr.  A.  woulJ, 
if  confillent  with  himfelf,  conclude,  that  Chrift  never  in.- 
tended  to  coinmand  the  real  ufe  of  bread  and  wine,  or  any 
other  material  elements  in  the  ordinance  of  the  fupper  ; 
for  the  want  of  bread  and  wine  may  happen  as  often  and 
to  as  great  multitudes,  as  the  want  of  water.  Then  he 
might  conclude  thus  :. 

"Now  it  mud  xe(\mre  very  clear  e-v'ulence  to  convince  msj. 
that  \^e  ejence  of  the  Lord's  fnppcr  lies  in  that  ivhich,  m  fo 
many  cafes  oi  this  kind,  mujl  d'feat  the  very  defign  of  it." 
Thus  Mr.  A.  with  the  very  fume  argument,  by  which  he 
condemns  my  principles,  judifics  the  Quakers.  Jud  fo  far 
as  his  argument  is  good  in  one  cafe,  it  is  the  fame  in  the 
other.  His  argument  is  either  good,  for  nothing,  becaufe 
it  proves  too  much,  or  elfe  it  proves  jud  enough,  and  the 
Quakers  are  in  the  right. 

6.  The  '■'•fo  many  cafes  of  this-  kind,^^  which  he  fuppofes 
mud  defeat  the  very  defign  of  baptifm,  are  mere  imagina- 
tion ;  not  one  of  them  ha^  ever  occurred,,  or  is  ever  like 
to. 

E   2 


4^  Second  Expofitlon  of 

7.  But  his  concluding  words  are  particularly  noticeable  ; 
they  are  thele  :  *'  This  moreover  is  altogether  unlike  what 
we  find  Ow  the  face  of  apoftolic  praflice." 

If  he  mean,  that  what  he  hath  been  paying,  and  that  his 
whole  argument  is  altogether  unhke  what  ve  find  on  the' 
face  of  apoftolic  pradice,  it  is  a  folemn  truth.  For  we 
do,  indeed,  find  not  a  word  of  his  popilh  and  wicked  ar- 
gument and  pracflice  in  any  of  the  writings  of  thofe  holy 
men.  We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  ftubborn  facts,  and  to 
the  common  fenfe  of  all  mankind,  if  there  be,  in  any  one 
text  of  the  whole  Bible,  where  it  fpeaks  of  gofpel  times  and 
gofpel  ordinances,  fo  much  as  a  fmgle  fhade  of  likenefs 
between  the  apoftohc  pradice  and  Mr.  A.'s  argument,  and 
the  errors  which  he  would  fupport  by  it  ^  But  if  he  intend 
by  his  clofing  aflertion,  that  liis  argument  and  tenets  are 
altogether  like  what  we  find  on  the  face  of  apoftolic  prac- 
tice, then  his  aifertion  is  very  illy  founded,  and,  deicrves  a 
worfe  name  than  I  choofe  to  give  it.  But  this  I  will  fay^ 
it  may,  at  leaU,  be  numbered  among  his  otlier  great  mil- 
takes,  and  the  argument  itfelf  may  increafe  the  number  of 
his  weak  ones. 

A  man  of  fonfc  muft  indeed  have  a  miferable  fide,  to  be 
compelled  to  ufe  fuch  miferable  arguments  in  the  defence  I 
of  it.  1  can  bear  with  tolerable  patience  to  hear  Mr.  A. 
accufe  me  of  repetitions,  for  I  had  rather  be  guilty  of  a 
thoufand,  than  to  have  one  fuch  argument  as  this  juftly 
laid  to  my  account. 

7.  Were  it  not  for  the  importance  of  the  prefent  con- 
troverfy,  I  might  be  apprehenfive  fome  of  my  readers 
would  gladly  difmifs  the  remaining  errors  of  Mr.  A.  ;  but 
when  it  is  confidcred  that  his  err<  rs,  generally  fpeaking, 
belong  to  a  great  clafs  of  n-.en,  and  that  fome,  who  are 
■with  him  in  them,  are  not  only  men  of  fenfe  and  erudition, 
but  of  piety  too  ;  and  befides,  when  it  is  confidered,  th;it 
where  his  errors  are  expofed,  many  may  have  them,  and, 
more  may  take  heed  not  to  imbibe  them  ;  then  it  will  ap- 
pear that  too  much  cannot  be  done  to  bring  them  into  their 
defircd  difreped.  I  fliall  therefore  fet  another  clufter  of 
them  to  public  view.  In  the  firft  place  we  fhall  fet  them 
down,  as  Mr.  A.  has  given  them  to  us  in  his  43d  page,  and 
then  expofe  them  individually.  They  are  contained  in  his 
words  which  follow.  "  There  is  but  little  hazard,  that 
your  moft  partial  readers  will  be  quieted  by  the  new  in- 
vention of  yours,  as  much  at  variance  with  common  fenfe, 
and  with  the  ex|>laaations  of  your  Baptift  brethren,  as  with 


Mr,  Auftin's  Mi/takes.  47 

the  fcrlptures,  that  the  covenant  of  circamcifioa  is  but  a 
token  of  the  covenant  of  grace.     That  it  is  but    a  mere 
law,  and  that  circamciriou  itfelf  is  this  covenant.     This  is 
twifting  and  turning  indeed.     '  The  covenant  of  circunxci- 
fion  equal,  (fay  you)  every  man-child  being  circumcifed  j 
every  man-child  being  circumcifed  equal,  the  cii-cumcifing 
of  the  flelh  of  their  forelkin  ;    the  circumciung  of  the  flefh 
of  their  forefkin  equal,  the  token  of  the  covenant  between 
God  and  Abraham  j    here  the  token  of  the   covenant  be- 
twixt God  and  Abraham  equal,  the  covenant  of  circumcl- 
fion  :    for  it  is  a  well  known  axiom,  that  things  that    are 
equal  to  the  flime  are  equal  to  one  another.'       This  alge. 
braic  equation,  my  friead,  in  pity  to  you,  I  will  leave  under 
a  fmiple  quotation." 
Some  of  his  errors  contained  in  this  quotation   are, 
I.     His  calling:  it  an  invention  of  mine,  to  confider  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion  as  but  a  token  of  the  co^oenant  of 
grace.     This  is  far  from  being  an.  invention  of  mine.     For 
fiith  the  Lord,  Gen.  xvii.  9,  10,  11.  "Thou  fh  a  It  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thou  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  in   their 
generations.     This  is  my  covenant  which  ye  fhili  keep  be- 
tween me  and  you  and  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  every  man-child 
among  you  Ih  ill  be  circuindfed ;  and  ye   fliall  circuincife  the 
Jl'JJj  of  )'0\xr f jr. Ji'in,  and  it  fLiU  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
l;  tzuJxt   me  and  you."     In  the    13th   verfe,  God,   fpeaking 
manifeftly  of  this  fima   covenant   of  circumcitlon,   faith, 
My  covencuit  fh  ill  bo  in  your  Ji.'Jh,  for  an  everlafhing  cove- 
nant."    Alfo  in  verfe   14.  fpeaking  of  the  fame  covenant:,, 
the  Lord  faith,  "  And  the  uaoircumclfed  man-child  whofe 
jleOi  of  his  forefkin  is  not  circumcifed,   that  foul   fhall   be 
cut  off  from  his  people,  he  \i\X\\hrolien  my  covenant"      Does^ 
Mr.  A.   fuppofe,  that   the  uncircumcifed   man-child    had. 
broken  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  If  he  do,  the  fcrlptures  fay- 
no  fuch  thing.     He  had  broken  the   covenant  of  circumci- 
fion, or  the  law,  or  covenant  of  circumcifioiv  had  not  bee» 
obfe.rved  with  relation  tohim.     Thus  we  fee  my  invention 
is.  the  good  old  Bible  account  of  the  matter.     However,  it 
is  not  to  be  weadered  at,  that  he  fhould  wilh.  to  get  rid  of 
this  matter  by  calling  it  a  new  invention  of  mine.     For  thi  j 
good  old  Bible  account  deftroys  his  anti-chrilHan  notion  of 
putting  children  into  the  covenant  of  grace  by  baptizing 
them.     For  all  the  plea  which  he  has  for  this  fuperilitious 
bufmefs,  is,  that  Abraham  and  his  feed  put  their  children, 
as  he  and  his  brethren  erroneoufly  fuppofe,  into  that  cove- 
nant, by  circumcifing  them.     But  this  Bible  account  of 


48  Second  Expofitiou  of 

clrcumcifion  removes  this  part  of  the  myjli-ry  of  inicjaity  ; 
and  lliows  th;it  Abrah;ini's  children  were  not  put  into  the 
covenant  of  grace  by  being  circumcifed,  and  fo  it  deftroys- 
the  notion  of  judaizuig  Chrillians  patting  theirs  in  by  bap- 
tifm. 

2.  Another  error  in  the  above  qaotation  Is,  his  repre- 
fenting  what  he  calls  my  new  invention,  as  being  at  va- 
riance with  common  fenfe,  and  with  the  explanations  of  my 
Baptill  brethren,  and  with   the  Bible. 

As  to  the  explanations  of  my  baptized  brethren,  I  know 
not  what  they  are,  not  recollecting,  or  having  never  feen 
any  of  them.  Yet,  finding  that  ray  invention  appears  tc 
harmonize  perfeJlly  with  the  Bible  reprefentatitjn,  and 
knowing  that  the  Bible  and  common  fenfe  agree,  and  alfo 
knowing  that  my  baptized  brethren  generally  agree  with 
both,  I  conclude,  tliat  I  am  not  greatly  at  variance  with 
either  of  the  three. 

3.  His  next  error  in^  this  clufter  Ishis  deolaratio:i,  that 
my  confidering  the  coven.uit  of  circarncifion  to  be  but  a. 
toi'en  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  circumcii'ion  itfel£ 
is  this  covenant,  is  tiv'ijTtng  and  turning  indeed.. 

I  appeal  to  the  Bible  and  common  feme,  if  I  have  not 
gone  fide  by  fide  with  both  oi  them.  If  £  h  ive,  there  is 
neither  t wiping  nor  turning  about  it,  fave  it  twids  his  erro- 
neous fentiments,  aid  turns  \i\s  njtim  of  patting  h.\s  gracekfs 
children  iato  the  covenant  of  grace^  by  f,)riiikiing  them, 
out  of  credit,  and  m.ike>  it  appear  as  it  ihoulJ,  an.inveuT 
tion  of  man.     Tnis  is  what  I  call,  goin':^  right  forward. 

4.  The  other  error,  wliich  I  Qi  lil  here  mention,  is  his 
unveafonable  pity  towards  me.  It  was  fo  great,  that  he 
has  left  us  all  in  ignorance  of  what  the  covenant  of  cir* 
cumcifion  is.  The  public  wouM.  have  been  under  great 
obligation  to  him,  had  he- pitied  me  leli,  and  fo  had  given 
them  a  plain  view,  or  clear  account  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion.  But  as  the  matter  is,  the  public  mad  dill  be 
uninformed,  or  elfe  take  my  new  invention,  the  good  oli^ 
Bible  reprefentation  of  this  matter. 

8.  Another  noticeable  error  of  Mr.  A.'S  is  his  implicit 
denial,  that  the  Paedobaptitl  theory  is  clogged  with  the 
abfurd  principle,  and  pratflice  too,  fo  far  as  their  principle 
and  pradice  agree,  that  if  a  South-Carolina  planter  be 
converted,  his  houfehold  are  difciples  of  courfcj  and  are 
to  be  baptized,  though  his  flaves  be  5000.  Thisisjuft  their 
abfurd  principle  and  praiflice  too,  fo  far  as  they  are  coi> 
fifteat  with  tliemfelves :  and  Mr,  A.  has  implicitly  denied 


Mr.  Aiijiin's  Mi/lakes.  49 

it,  and  as  he  confefTes  It  to  be  a  clog  to  their  theory,  if  true, 
and  alfo  an  abfurdity,  it  appears  to  me  expedient,  in  this 
place,  to  prove  the  fa<fl  againft  their  theory,  and  thus  to 
fix  an  abfurdity  upon  their  pracJlice,  and  clog  it  as  much 
as  I  can.  But  in  the  firll  place,  I  will  give  the  public  his 
attempt  to  get  off. 

In  page  46,  his  words  are  thefe  :  fays  he  to  me,  "  In 
page  62,  you  fay,  refpe(5Hng  Abraham's  houfehold,  «  But 
let  it  be  more  or  lefs,  one  thing  is  certain,  they  were  all  to 
be  circumcifed  on  account  of  Abraham's  being  a  good  man, 
full  of  faith.*  That  which  is  certain  can  eafily  be  prov- 
ed. Proof  is  not  furnillied  ;  and  it  is  believed  never  cart 
be  furniflied.  Yet  you  woul-.l  make  ufe  of  this  affertion  to 
clog  the  Pffidobaptili  theory  with  the  abfurdity  in  praiflice, 
that  if  oiic  of  us  fliould  convert  a  South-Carolina  planter, 
into  a  difciple,  we  of  courfe  make  difciples  of  all  his  flaves, 
though  they  were  5000." 

Thus  fiys  Mr.  A. ;  and  now  what  I  wifli  is  to  prove  thh 
abfurdity  upon  his  theory,  and  thus  clog  it  as  much  as  I 
can,  and,  if  poflible,  fpoil  the  ill-gotten  credit  of  this  juda- 
izing  theory,  and  ftop  its  progrefs. 

My  arguments,  by  which  to  accompliih  this,  are  two. 
I.  They  take  the  law  of  circumcifion  as  their  example 
and  juftification.  Their  principle  is  founded,  or  built  upon 
the  law  of  circumcifion.  This  law  is  recorded  Gen  xvii. 
12.  Thus,  "  He  that  is  eight  days  old  fhxUbe  circumcifed 
among  you,  every  man-child  in  your  generations ;  he  that 
is  born  in  the  houfe,  or  bought  ivith  mj.ny  of  any  Jlranger, 
which  is  not  of  thy  feed."  This  is  the  law,  and  if  the  read- 
er wifli  for  any  explanition,  it  is  furnilhsd  to  his  hand  in 
verfe  23,  where  Abraham's  obeiieuce  to  it  is  thus  ex- 
preiTed.  *'  And  Abraham  took  lihmael  his  fon,  and  all 
that  were  bora  in  his  hoafe,  and  all  thai  tj^re  bought  with 
money,,  ev^ry  male  amonj  the  mm  of  Abraham's  hvife^  and  cir- 
cumcifed the  flefh  of  their  foreikin,  in  the  felf-fama  day,  as 
God  had  faid  uuro  him."  Hare  is  the  law,  obedience  and 
example,  which  Paedobaptifts  profefs  to  follow,  and  on  this 
account,  and  in  this  p;irt'cular,  they  are  juiHy  llyled,  Juda- 
izin'^  Chriftians.  Bat  my  prelent  bufinefs  is  to  fliow, 
that  their  fentiment,  or  principle,  leads  them  to  baptize  50 
or  500,  or  5000  flaves,  belonging  to  a  Soath-Carolina 
planter,  provided  he  be  chriilianized.  My  argument  is 
this.  Abraham  had  many  fervants  born  in  his  houfe,  and 
hoiighl  -uUh  his  iiion.y,  years  before  the  covenant  of  circum- 
oifion  was  given.     He  had  3  >  S  trained  fjldiers  or  fervants 


yO  Second  Expofition  of 

born  in  his  houfe,  and  how  many  bought  with  his  money 
wcjknow  not.  He  might  have  many  more,  before  th^  day 
ot  their  circumcifion.  For  afterwards  he  was  called  a 
mighty  prince,  Gen.  xxiii.  6.  Now  all  thefe,  which  Abraham 
poifeired  on  the  day  of  circumcifion,  let  them  be  50,  or 
500,  or  5000,  were  all  circumcifed,  on  account  of  Abra- 
ham's being  a  good  man,  full  of  fairh,  or  on  account  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was  made  with  him. 
The  principle  of  the  Pasdobaptills  is  founded  on  this  very 
bufinefs,  and  is  meant  to  fquare  with  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion ;  and  their  pradice  with  the  praftice  of  Abra- 
ham. Befides,  their  principle  is,  that  every  believing  pa- 
rent or  mafter  of  his  family,  is  to  his  family  as  Abraham 
was  to  his.  Hence  my  charge  againfl:  them  is,  that  to  be 
confillent  with  their  principle,  and  to  go  through  with 
their  theory,  they  mull  baptize  a  converted  S^uth-Carolina 
planter  and  all  his  houfehoid,  whether  he  have  5,  50,  503,  or 
50QO  flaves  belonging  to  it.  Upon  thefameprinciple,  I  might 
add,  to  be  conjijient  nu'ith  themfehes,  they  would  be,  in  this 
particular,  downright  papifts,  and  baptize  the  fubjeds  of  a 
mighty  prince,  becaufe  he  was  converted.  If  this  principle 
be  a  gofpel  one,  it  will  bear  examination,  and  not  be  the 
worfe  for  being  pra(5lifed  to  perfection.  If  it  be  al^furd 
•when  pradifed  thoroughly,  it  is  not  the  lefs  fo  when  prac- 
tifed  fmally.  The  only  difference  is,  the  abfurdity  does 
not  appear  fo  glaring. 

2.  My  other  argument  is,  That  all  the  evidence  for  in- 
fant baptifm,  to  which  the  Paedobaptifts  can  make  any  plau- 
fible  preteafion,  is  founded  upon  the  above  abfurd  principle. 
They  can  make  no  plea,  that  the  families  of  the  jailer, 
Stephauus  and  Lydia  w^re  baptized  upon  the  faith  of  the 
parent  or  mafter,  but  upon  the  principle,  that  they  were 
tlius  baptized,  becaufe  Abraham's  family  were  circum:ifei 
upon  his  faith.  Now  I  argue  thus.  If  it  be  according  ta 
the  gofpel  to  baptize  a  fm  ill  family,  or  houfehoid,  on  the 
faith  of  a  believing  parent  or  m.ifter,  it  is  according  to  the 
fame  gofpel  to  baptize  a  larger  one  ;  and,  if  the  principle 
be  good,  the  larger  the  better,  if  there  be  any  ad\Mntage 
in  it,  for  then  the  more  will  be  pronted.  Becauie  I  thus 
argue,  Mr.  A.  chirges  me  with  wilh'ng  to  clog  the  Pasdo- 
baptift  theory  with  this  abfurdity  in  praftice.  I  confef;,  I 
am  not  for  halving  matters,  but  for  having  good  principles 
thoroughly  praclifed,  and  the  abfurdity  of  bad  one?  fully  to 
appear. 


Mr.  Aujlln*s  Miftakes.  51 

I  corfider  inyfelf  as  having  turned  hinges  evidence.  I  fee 
my  former  errors,  and  renounce  them  ;  I  condemn  them, 
as  having  been  pradifed  by  myfelf,  and  cannot  juftify  them 
as  pradifed  by  others. 

If  my  arguments  be  jufl,  Mr.  A.  confefies  their  praftice 
is  abfurd  ;  or  that  it  is  abfurd  to  praiSife  upon  fuch  a  the- 
ory. If  the  praflice  be  abfurd,  the  theory  is  fo  too.  If 
my  arguments  be  not  juft,  if  they  be  not  founded  upon  the 
very  principle  of  their  pra(flice,  they  are  invited  to  expofe 
them,  and  to  do  it  thoroughly.  But  if  my  arguments  be 
corrcd,  then  they  are  invited  to  leave  their  abfurd  practice, 
and  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  to  the  help  of  the 
Lord  againli  the  mighty. 

Upon  the  fame  page,  whence  he  took  the  laft  quotation, 
Mr.  A.lells  me  that  he  highly  efteems  the  gofpel  ordi- 
nance of  baptifm  ;  it  is  hoped  that  his  fluure  writings  will 
bear  a  better  tefiimony  in  his  favour.  On  the  fame  page, 
he  alfo  infcims  me,  he  has  expofcd  himfelf  to  great  perfon- 
al  trials,  to  guard  the  facrednefs  of  that  ordinance.  Would 
it  not  be  well  for  him  to  expofe  himfelf  to  a  few  more,  that 
he  might  keep  the  ordinance  according  to  the  command- 
ment and  pattern  given  ? 

In  page  48,  he  (through  an  error  of  judgment^  charges 
m-e  with  condemning  myfelf.  His  words  are.  ♦'  You  have 
attempted  to  fix  opprobrium  upon  the  doflrine  of  Paedo- 
baptijm,  by  deriving  it  from  the  foul  fmk  of  popery,  and 
upcn  its  abetters,  as  enlifled  under  the  banners  of  Antichrifl. 
But  you  have  condemned  yourfelf  with  refpefl  to  the  firft, 
by  conceding,  that  fprinkling-was  pradlifed  in  the  cafe  of 
clinicks  before  popery  exifted,  and  that  infant  baptifm  was 
in  general  praftiied  in  the  days  of  St.  Auftin." 

Here  the  good  man's  error  is  in  his  judgment.  I  have 
never  conceded  that  fprinkling,  for  gofpel  baptifm,  was 
pradlifed  in  the  cafe  of  clinicks,  or  in  any  other  cafe,  before 
popery  exided.  The  wyjlery  of  this  itiiquity  began  to  work 
even  in  the  apoftles'  days,  and  popery  had  gotten  con- 
f  derable  footing,  when  they  fnbflituted  fprinkling  in  the 
cafe  of  fick  perfons,  for  gofpel  baptifm.  When  St.  Auftin 
fiourifhed,  popery  was  in  its  full  tide  of  fuccefsful  exper- 
iment. It  had  new  fpread  over  nighly  all  what  was  call- 
ed the  Chriftian  world,  fave  the  Heretics,  as  the  pjedobap- 
tifts  called  them,  in  the  rallies  of  Piedmont.  Thefe  God 
preferved  from  the  mark  of  the  Eeaft  ;  and  they  never 
lubmitted  to  the  po•\^ers  of  Antichrifl.  Thefe  were  the 
progenitors  of  the  prcfent  E?ptifl[s  j    and  by  the  Rom.anifts, 


52  Second  Expofition  of 

they  were  ftyled  the  oldeft  herefy  in  the  world.     Hence, 
Mr.  A.  inftead  of  flowing  a    contradidion   of  mine,   has 
through  error  of  judgment,  added  one  to  the  number  of  his 
miftakes.     However  foul  the  fink  of  popery  is,   from  that 
came  Pasdobaptifm,  and  it  is  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  the 
man  of  fin.     Kefides,  all  who  plead  for  it,  plead  for  the  ] 
principal    ordinance    and  pradtice   of  Antichrift.     Chrift  ] 
hath  no  where  commanded   Pasdobaptifm  ;    nor  has  he  in  ; 
any  place  commiffioned  his  minifters,   either  to  preach  or 
praiflife  it.     But  tlae  Pope  hath  done  both. 

In  his  49th  page,  he  appears  to  have  fome  clofing  ftrokes. 
"  On  the  whole,  fays  he,  the  controverfy  between  you  and 
me  is  brought  to  an  iflue.      It  is  this.  The  foundation  of  your  j 
fiadotvy  fabric  ivas  laid  in  ajfertion  :    The  juperfiruUure  nuas 
reared  in  ajfertion  :  It  has  been  attempted  to  be  holden.  up  by   af-  \ 
fertion  ;     and  it  has  at  lajl  vanifoed  as  a  mere  Jhadowy  thing."  j 
Even  this  aflcrtif  n  requires  a  little  proof.     By  it  Mr.  A. 
expeif^cd  to  give  the  finifhing  (Iroke   to  the  taking  aivay  of  1 
»?)'  defenjive  armor,     I  frankly  confefs,  it  hath  as  much  pow-  ; 
erful  efficacy  towards    removing  it,  as   any   paflage,    or 
even  page  W'hich   preceded  it.       I  might,  however,   have 
excepted  the  two  fird  lines  of  his  title  page  ;    for  there  he 
tells  us  that  it  is  done.     Had  he  not   given  us  the    infor- 
mation,in  the  firft  outfet  of  his  pamphlet,  that  Mr.  Merrill's 
defenfve  armor  was  taken   from   liim,  no  perfon  who  un- 
derftood  the  controverfy,  would  have  gathered  the  idea 
from  any  thing  which  followed. 

We  will  now  turn  our  attention  for  a  moment  to  his  laft  ' 
Letter,  in  which  he  makes  fome  obfervations  upoa  my 
clofing  one  to  him.  In  this  he  does  not  appear  in  perfe(5lly 
good  humour.  All  his  fentences  do  not  appear  like  apples 
of  gold  in  pidlures  of  filver.  He  fays  that  the  court,  by 
which  his  errors  were  tried,  is  not  in  the  Bible.  This  is 
alfo  his  miftake  ;  for  all  the  texts  in  the  Bible,  which  fpeak 
of  a  particular  fubjecfl,  is  the  Bible  with  refpect  to  that  fub- 
je(5l.  He  alfo  tells  me  that  I  entirely  loft  fight  of  the  ob- 
ject which  I  fhould  have  had  in  view,  the  fupport  of  my 
own  theory  and  pradtice.  This  is  alfo  his  mirtake  ;  for  I 
kept  in  fight  the  fupport  of  my  own  theory  and  pra<5tice,  / 
and  the  deftrudtion  of  his.  He  farther  fays.  That  the  court,  ' 
which  was  eredled  wr-s  not  the  one  to  which  he  appealed. 
This  is  a  third  miftake  ;  for  it  was  the  Bible  with  refpecl 
to  his  three  great  Antichriftian  errors  ;  which  are,  fprink- 
ling  for  gofpel  baptifm,  manifcft  unbeliever?  the  fubje(5ts 


Mr.  Aujiiris  Mijlahs,  53 

of  brptlfm,  and  communion  wiih  unbaptized  perfons.     By 
the  Bible  thefe   three  vere  tried  and   condemned.      Had 
Mr.  A.  when  he  wrote  liis  reply,  poirefTed   a  Tolemn  fenfe 
of  this  truth,  that  by  the  Bible  he,   as  ■well   as   I,   rauft  be 
jildged  at  the  laft  day,  he  would,  probably,  have  omittedfev-ji 
eral  of  his  epithets,  and  have  endeavoured  to  prove,  unlefs 
he  were  convinced  of  his  errors,  that  though  the  court  was  a 
good  one,  yet  he  had  not  a  fair  hearing.  '  Had  he  come 
forward,   and  have  fhown  that  any  of  the   witnefTes  were 
bribed,  or  rather  that  the  fenfe   of  their  teftimony   was 
perverted,  and  requefted  a  re-hearing,  ancl  obtained  it,  as  he 
might  have  done,  and  then  have  brought  forward  fomie  of 
the  witneUes  again,  and  have  fhown,  in  open  court,  that  they 
juflified  his  principle  and  praflice,  and   condemned  mine, 
then  he  would  jultly  have  caft  the  charges  vipon  me  ;  but 
to  be   out  of  humour,  as  I  have  feen  fome,  after  trial  had, 
is  not  the  beft  way  to   prove  the  innoccncy  of  his   errors. 
Had  he  have  confidered  my  ufige  towards  him,  not  of  the 
belt  kind,   furely  his   wifdom  was  to  have  proved  his  fen- 
tence  vnijuft.     Then  would  he  have  righteoufly  brought  on 
me  the  two-fold  crime   of  juftifying  the  guilty,  and   con- 
demning the  innocent ;  yes,  had  he  been  able  to  have  pro- 
duced one  text,  which  fhould  fpeak  for  him,  he  would  have 
been  juftified,  according  to   a  ftatement  which  I   made  at 
the  time,  and   before  the  court,  in  thefe  words,     ♦  Every 
text  is  allowed  to  be  a  good  witnefs,  and  to  poffefs  evidence 
fufficient  to  fet   the   accufed  free,  xrpon  bearing   teftimony 
in  his  favour.'      Had  he   have  found   one  text  to   his  pur- 
pofe,  he  could  have  been  acquitted  before  the   public,  be- 
fore his  own  confcience,    and  alfo  before  the  Judge  of  all. 
But  fo  long  as  he  fnall  fubfritute  hard  words  for   hard   ar- 
gument, he  may  not  be  fully  acquitted  before  cither,  and 
will  convince  but  fcA'  that  his  caufe  is  good. 

However,  I  by  no  means  fault  him  for  bringir.g  no  -text 
to  his  help  ;  for  1  knevy  beforehand  that  he  had  none  to 
bring.  Otherwife  1  fhould  not  have  been  fo  bold  in  con- 
demning his  errors,  and  in  warning  him  to  forfake  them. 
His  fault  is  in  retaining  them  after  they  have  been  tried  by 
the  Bible  and  found  ivanting.  I  well  knew,  that  a  degree 
of  feverity  was  ufed  with  his  errors,  but  as  truth  would 
fully  juftify  fuch  a  ufe,  it  was  confidered  that  the  obflinacy 
of  the  cafe  called  for  it.  Error  muft  be  treated  as  beirg  what 
it  is.  the  enemy  of  God  and  man;  and  thegrofs  errors  of  Mr. 

r 


54  Second  Expofition  of 

A.  may  call  for  feverer  treatment  ftill ;  for  they  belong  to 
the  man  of  fin,  whom  the  Lord  will  condemn  with  the 
Spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  will  dcllroy  with  the  brightnefs  of 
his  coming. 

^  Did  Mr.  A.  know  the  figns.of  the  times,  he  would  not 
wave  written  with  fo.much  contempt  as  he  has  done.  His 
courage,  and  that  of  his  brethren  too,  in  their  wicked  oppo- 
fition  againfl  the  Baptiftswillfoon  fail  them.  He  doubtlefs 
recollects  what  a  bloody  decree  was  iffued  againfl:  the  Jews, 
•in  the  days  of.Haman,  the  fon  of  Ham.edatha,  the  Agagite, 
and  fignfd  in  Ahafuerus's  name,  and  fealed  with  the  king's 
feal,  to  dcftroy,  to  kill,  and  caufe  to  periih,  all  Jews, 
throughout  the  hundred  twenty  and  feven  provinces,  from 
India  to  Ethiopia.  Trobably  he  has  alfo  recollection  of 
the  decree  which  was  iifued  at  Efther's  fuit,  by  which  the 
Jew-s  had  full  liberty  to  ftand  for  their  lives,  and  to  deftroy, 
to  flay  and  caufe  their  enemies  to  perifh.  This  hath  been 
written  in  the  boojc  of  Efther,  for  our  learning.  The  Pope 
and  his  conclave,  prompted  by  their  rooted  hatred  towards 
the  baptized  church,  have  ilfued  their  decree  againfl;  them 
to  deftroy,  to  kill  and  caufe  them  to  perifli.  But  a  very 
different  decree  is ; now  gone  forth,  of  which  Mr.  A.  hath 
either  not  heard,  or  yet  dift>elieves.  Indeed,  it  may  be 
that  the  Baptifts  themfelves  have  not,  generally,  had  the 
information,  or  dare  not  fully  credit  it,  that  tliey  now  have, 
according,  to  the  decree  of  the  King,  a  perfect  liberty  to 
ftand  for  their  lives,  and  to  deftroy,  to  flay  and  cauie  to' 
perifh,  by  the  fword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of 
God,  not  Mr.  A.'s  errors  only,  but  alfo  all  the  laws,  tra- 
ditions, ftatutes  and  ordinances  of  antichrift.  The  report 
of  this  decree  may  be  to  Mr.  A.  like  as  the  fecond  decree 
of  Ahafuerus  was  to  the  enemies  of  the  Jews,  whilft  they 
difbelieved  it  ;  but  it  will  have  a  very  ditfcrent  effed  upon 
both  him  and  his  brethren,  when  the  certainty  fhall  be 
known,  v.hich  they  will  foon  know,  and  to  their  coft  too, 
except  they  fpeedily  repent  of  their  hatred  to  the  baptized 
church.  It  is  tliis  decree  which  emboldens  me  to  ftand  for 
my  life  in  the  prefent  controverfy  ;  and  fills  me  with  ex- 
pe<5tation,  that  as  it  happened  to  the  Jews,  that  they  had 
rule  over  them  that  hated  them,  fo  it  fhall  foon  be  that  all 
who  walk  in  all  the  ftatutes  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
blamelefs,  fhall  be  in  honour,  and  all  their  adverfarie.  con- 
founded. Let  me  not  feem  to  Mr.  A,  or  to  the  i  eader, 
like  Lot  to  his  fons-in-law. 


Mr.  AuJiirCs  Mtfiakes.  '55 

In  his  concliifion,  he  informs  the  reader  that  his  public 
correfpondence  with  me  is  clofed.  It  might  have  been  as 
well  for  him,  and  more  for  the  credit  of  his  errors,  to  have 
taken  Solomon's  advice,  and  to  have  left  off  contention 
before  he  had  meddled  with  it.  But  he  adds,  p.  53, 
*•  Should  any  other  appear  to  advocate  the  do(ftrine,  that 
immerfion  is  the  exclufive  mode  of  baptifm,  and  effenual 
to  it,  he  will  not  be  entitled  to  a  public  reply,  unlels  he 
fhall  make  ufe  of  fome  new  topic  of  argument,  or  give  old 
arguments  a  much  more  plaufible  form  than  they  have 
yet  aflumed.  And  he  mull  be  holden  to  the  Scriptures  as 
his  fource  of  evidence,  becaufe  there  can-  be  no  eiTential  • 
doftrine,  iaftitution,  or  duty,  which  the  Scripture  Itfelf 
does  rot  clearly  afcertain." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  affign  the  reafon  why  Mr.  A.  re- 
quefts  his  opponents  to  employ  fome  new  topic  of  argument ; 
for  their  prefent  topics,  plain  fcnpture  precept  and  example, 
with  their  deductions,  he  finds  very  hard  to  be  managed. 
Yet,  to  the  confufion  of  his  whole  fcheme,  he  fays,  •'  There 
can  be  no  eflential  do(5trine,  inftitution,  or  duty,  which  the 
Scripture  itfelf  does  not  clearly  afcertain."  Upon  this  dec- 
laration of  Mr.  A.'s  the  following  queftions  are  propofed 
to  the  reader  : 

1.  Do  the  Scriptures  clearly  afcertain,  that  fprinkling  is 
the  matter  of  gofpel  baptifm  ? 

2.  Does  the  Scripture  clearly  a/certain,  that  infants  and 
houfeholds  of  unbelieving  adults  are  the  fubjeds  of  gofpel 
baptifm  ? 

3.  Does  the  Scripture  clearly  afcertain,  that  unbaptized 
perfons  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  communion  ? 

The  anfwer  to  each  of  thefe  is  thus,  that  it  does  net.  Then 
the  conclufion  from  Mr.  A.'s  premifes  is  clearly  this.  That 
fprinkling  for  baptifm  ;  that  infants,  or  unbelieving  houfe- 
holds for  the  fubjetfts  of  bapdfm  ;  and  that  communion 
with  the  unbaptized,  are  not  eifential  dodrines,  inftitutions, 
or  duties.  Hence,  he  is  amufing  the  public,  and  earneftiy 
contending  for  uneffential  matters.  This  conclufion  is  juft, 
for  it  is  indeed  a  truth,  that  his  antifcriptural  notions  are 
not  effential,  fave  to  the  fupport  of  worldly  inftitutions,  and 
to  the  caufe  of  the  man  of  fin. 

What  we  have  more  to  offer,  is  a  few  conclufions  from 
what  we  have  pafFed  over. 

1.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  has  a  weak  and  bad 
caufe  to  defend.     For  no  good  man,  pofTeffing  talents  and 


^6  Second  Expofttion  of 

education,  could  ufe  fuch  falfe  and  beggarly  arguments, 
make  fo  many  miftakes,  be  guilty  of  fuch  mifrepiefenta- 
tions,  and  fill  his  pages  with  notorious  errors,  in  the  defence 
of  a  good  caufe,  or  in  the  fupport  of  truth. 

2.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.'s  whole  performance, 
which  we  hive  examined,  is  one  continued  heterogeneous 
mixture  of  falfe  arguments,  weak  arguments,  miftakcs, 
mifx-eprefentations,  and  errors ;  for  we  have  attended  to 
almoil  every  page,  and  have  found  them  to  be  of  this  de- 
fcription. 

3.  We  conclude,  that  his  reafons  for  quitting  the  field 
of  public  correfpondence  with  the  Author,  are  but  too  ob- 
vious. We  would  fuggeft  the  idea,  whether  it  would  not 
be  advifable  for  him  to  change  his  fide,  or  never  enter  the 
like  field  ngain. 

4.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  who  is  no  doubt  a  worthy 
charader  and  a  man  of  fenfe,  has  been  raifed  up  by  the 
Lord  to  expofe  the  weaknefs  of  his  antichriftian  caufe  ; 
for  he  is  a  man  of  too  refined  an  education  to  ufe  fo  much 
ribaldry  as  too  many  of  his  denomination  have  done  ;  at 
the  fame  time,  he  is  a  man  of  too  much  honefty,  not  to 
expofe  his  real  fentiments  ;  and  finding  no  judicious  argu- 
ments to  fupport  what  he  really  believed  true,  he  has,  with 
as  much  plaufibility  as  he  could,  made  ufe  of  the  beft  argu- 
ments which  his  bad  fide  afforded.  1  hefe  arguments,  in 
their  very  nature,  having  no  tendency  to  bring  conviction 
to  unprejudiced  rrands,  vrill  ferve  to  open  to  public  view 
the  weaknefs  and  wickednefs  of  that  caufe  which  fo  labours, 
and  has  need  of  fuch  management  in  its  defence.  Nothing 
is  wanting,  to  the  ruin  of  his  caufe  and  errors,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  candid  and  impartiil  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity, but  to  have  chem  clearly  expofed.  A  few  more  fuch 
publications  as  his  lift  will  accomplifh  this  buiinefs. 

5.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.  has  no  confident  notion 
of  that  kingdom,  called  Chrift's  vlfible  church,  which  the 
God  of  heaven  was  to  fet  up  in  the  time  of  the  four  great 
rTiOnarchies,  or  during  the  days  of  thofe  kings  fpoken  of  by 
}3aniel  the  prophet  ;  for  in  parts  of  his  pamphlet  he  ap- 
pears to  know  not  any  difference  between  the  fphitual  king- 
dom of  Chrift  in  this  world,  which  hath  continued  at  leall 
fmce  the  converfioa  of  Abel,  and  his  viftble  kingdom,  which 
was  fet  up  during  the  Roman  empire,  and  was  at  hand 
when  the  Baptiil  came  preaching  in  the  wildernefs  und 
baptizing  in  Jordan. 


Mr.  Atijlin-s  Mtflakes,  if 

6.  We  conclude,  that  Mr.  A.'s  three  great  errors,  which- 
are  fprinkling  or  pouring  for  baptifo,  manifefl  unbelievers 
the  fubje(f^s  of  baptifm,  and  unbaptized  church  members 
and  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  with  them,  are  all  of 
a  piece  ;  fbr  he  has  not  found,  nor  can  he  find,  one  text  of 
fcripture  to  fupport  either  of  them..  Befides,  each  of  thefe 
errors  ftrongly  tends  to  deface  and  diforganize  the  vllible 
church  of  Chrift.  They  mufl  therefore  be  parts  of  the 
man  of  fm. 

7.  We  conclude,  that  whild  Mr.  A.  has  been  writing; 
his  Letters  to  the  Author,  he  had  not  for  his  main  objeft 
the  knowledge  and  defence  of  the  truth  ;  for  if  he  had,, 
evidence  would  not  have  failed  him  in  every  particular, 
nor  would  he  have  made  fuch  notorious  mii'takes  and  blun- 
ders in  every  page.  It  is  not  truth,  but  error,  which  com- 
pels men  to  go  fuch  a  crooked  courfe  as  he  has  travelled. 
Nor  does  truth  require  hard  words  to  be  employed  in  her 
defence ;  her  arguments  are  fufficiently  trying  for  the  erro- 
neous tp  endure.  Hard  words  are  ufually  the  attendants, 
on  a  bad  caufe ;  but  truth  is  encompafied  with  hard  and 
fevere  arguments.  To  oppofe  the  truth  is  like  kicking, 
againft  fharp  pointed  pins ;  the  more  refolute  the  oppofi- 
tion,  the  more  does  the  oppofer  injure  himfelf.  Would 
Mr.  A.  look  into  the  difturbances  of  his  own  bofom,  he- 
would  find  they  are  unlike  what  thofs  feel,  who  are  calmly^ 
yet  earneftly  vindicating  the  ways  of  God  to  men. 

8.  We  conclude,  that  a  real  Chriftian  mud  be  greatly 
blinded  by  prejudice,  to  believe  Mr.  A.'s  errors,  when  there 
is  not  one  text  in  the  Bible  which  fpeaks  a  word  in  favour 
of  either  of  them,  and  when,  at  the  fame  time,  every  text 
which  fpeaks  of  the  fubje^l  is  direcflly  againft,  them,  and 
explains  and  defends  the  oppoGte ;  as  the  reader  may  fee 
by  reading  the  Author's  twelfth  Letter  to  Mr.  A. 

Lajlly.  We  conclude,  that  as  the  baptized  church  have- 
the  open  volume  of  revelation  on  their  fide,  and  the  Cap- 
tain of  the  Lord's  hoft  for  them,  and  as  the  time  is  now 
come  in  which  they  fhould  have  liberty,  full  liberty,  to 
ftand  for  their  lives,  they  fhould  now  be  lirong  in  the  Lord 
and  in  th$  power  of  his  might,  putting  on  the  whole  armour 
of  God,,  that  they  may  be  able  to  ftand  againft  the  wiles 
of  the  devil ;  for  they  indeed  have  to  wrelHe,  not  merely 
againft  flefh  and  blood,  but  againft  principalities,  againft 
powers,  againft  the  rulprs  of  the  darknefs  cf  this  world, 


5^  Second  Espofiiion,  ^c, 

agamft  fptritual  wickednef«-in  high  places.  At  fuch  a  time 
Heaven  may  well  exped  every  Chriftian  to  do  his  duty  • 
then  -will  the  conflid  be  fhort,  and  the  Lord's  battle  glori! 
oufly  won.  As  Joab  faid  to  his  brother,  (2  Sam.  x.  12.) 
at  the  critical  moment  when  an  hard  fought  battle  was  jult 
commencing,  fo  I  fay  to  my  baptized  brethren,  Be  of  good 
courage,  and  let  us  play  the  men  for  our  people,  and  for 
the  cities  of  our  God ;  and  the  Lord  dc  that  which  feemeth 
him  good. 

With  defires  for  Chrift's  rifing  kingdom, 

I.  am,  the  reader's  and  troth's  friend,. 

DANIEL  MERRILL. 


SrHIW 


B     O     O     K     S 

Vorfalcly  Manning  tsf  Lojung,  No.  2,  CorrihiU^ 


THE  Ghriftian  Banner.  A  Sermon,  preach- 
ed before  the  Lincoln  Baptized  Aflbciation,  and  at 
their  requell  made  public.  By  Daniel  Merrill,  a.  m. 
{_Pnce  xzkctj. 

I     Mr.  Merrill's  Seven   Sermons    on  the  Mode  and  Sub- 
]e<fls  of  Baptifm.  \^Prke  ilkcts, 

Mr.  MerriU's  Twelve  Letters  to  Mr.  Auftin. 

-^Price  31^  ck, 
Mr.  Merrill's  Letters  on -Open  Communion. 

[^Prlce  25  cts. 

Letters    occafioned   by    the    Rev.     Samuei. 

Worcester's  Two  Difcourics  refpc-Jling  the  Perpetuity  and 
Provifion  of  God's  gracious  Covenant  with  Abniham  and 
\i\s  feed.  Deteding,  by  plain  Scripture,  ftubborn  fads,  and 
fober  reafor,  fonie  of  his  grofs  mifreprefentations,  unfound- 
ed afleitions,  and  fophiftical  arguments.  By  Daniel  Mer- 
rill. [^Price  3  1  ^  cts. 

CoUins's  Second  Edition   of  the  Quarto  BIBLE,  with 

Oftervald's   Notes,  1  laie.:,  ar.d  Concordance Collins's 

Bible  has  obtained  celebrity  as  being  the  moll  correft  of 
,  any  ever  priri ted  in  America. 

An  afibrtment  of  Carey's  Family  Bible. 

Fuller's  Gofpel  its  own  Wicnefs.  [^Prlce  one  doU 

Fuller's  Life  of  Pearce.  \_Prics  one  doU 

Fuller's  Backfiider.  \_Price  6l\  cts. 

Burnet's  Life. of  the  Earl  of  Rochefter.        \_Price  50  cts. 

Friendly  Viiit  to  the  Houfe  of  Mourning.      [Price  20  cts. 

Abbadie  on  the  Deity  of  Jefus  Chrift.  [^Price  one  dol. 

The    Second    Edition    of    the    PIalmodift*s 

Affillant  :  containing  an  Original  Compofitlon  of  Pfalm 
and  Hymn  Tunes;  together  with  a  number  of  Favourite 
Pieces  from  different  Authors.  To  w^hich  is  prefixed,  an  in- 
trodufftion  to  the  Grounds  of  Mufic.     By  Abijah  Forbush. 

{^Pr'tce  6z\cts. 

The  Baptifm  of  Believers  only,  and  the  Par- 
ticular Communion  of  the  Baptift  Churches,  explained  and 
vindicated.  In  Three  Parts.  The  firft — publiflied  origin- 
ally in  1789  ;  the  fecond — in  1794;  the  third — an  Appen- 


Books  for  fak  by  Manning  Id'  Loring, 

•dii,  containing  additional  Obfervations  and  Arguments, 
v'ith  Striftures  on  feveral  late  Publications.  By  Thomas 
Baldwin.  \^Price  one  dol.  12\  cts. 
Oj»  The  Appendix,  containing  i8o  pages  never  before 
publifhed,  may  be  bought  feparately,  price  bound  and  let= 
tered  G2\  cents,  or  50  cents  ftitched  in  blue. The  Au- 
thors whofe  writings  againli  the  Baptifts  are  more  partic-  . 
Tjlarly  noticed  in  this  Appendix,  are — Rev.  Samuel  Wor-  » 
cefter,  of  Salem — ^Dr.  Ofgood,  of  Medford — Kev.  Samuel 
Auflin,  of  Worccfter,  and  Rev.  Peter  Edwards. 

The  Doflrine    of  the  Law    and    Grace  un- 

fouldeJ  Being  a  Difcourfe  fnewing  the  different  natures  of 
the  Law  and  Gofpel ;  and  the  very  diflimilar  ftates  of  thofe 
who  are  under  the  Law,  and  thofe  who  are  under  Grace,  or 
intereReJ  in  JefusChrift.     By  John  Bun  van. 

[PnVf  one  dollar. 

BunyanV,    PILGRIM'S   PROGRESS,  with 

original  Notes,  Preface,  Life  of  the  Author,  and  co- 
pious Index  to  the  whole,  by  Thomas  Scott,  Chaplain  to 
the  Lock  Hofpital,  and  author  of  Original  Notes  and  Prac- 
tical OSfervations  on  the  Scriptures.  (With  four  copper- 
plates.) 'IPrke  I  c/oi.  2^  cts. 

The  peaceful  P-eflcclions  and  glorious  Prof- 

pefls  of  the  departing  Saint,  A  Difcourfe,  delivered  in  the 
meeting  houfe  of  the  Firft  Baptift  Ch.urch  in  Bofton,  March 
16,  1807,  at  the  inte;ment  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Stillman, 
D.  n.  late  Paftor  of  faid  church.  By  THOMAsBAtDwiN,n.n. 
Paftor  of  the  Second  Baptift  Church  in  Bofton. 

[Pr/Vi?  20  cts. 

Stoddard's  Safi-ty  of  appearing  in  the  Righteoufnefs  of 
Chriit.  \^Pric£  one  dol. 

Dr.  Shepard's  Epiftle  to  Mr.  Elias  Smith.  [Pr/Vf  25  cts. 

Huntington's  B.ank  of  Faith.  {^Pr'ice  one  dol. 

Doddridge's  Rife  and  Prcgrefs  of  Religion  in  the    Soul. 
{_Pfu:e  one  dol.  JmaUer  type  87^  cts.. 

Baxter's  Call  to  the  Unconverted.  \_Price  bz\  cts, 

Burder's  Oriental  Cufloms.  {^Price  two  dols, 

Thomas  A.  Kempis's  Imitation  of  Chrift. — This  book 
abounds  with  the  moft  folemn  and  weighty  thoughts  re- 
fpeding  Chrift,  eternal  things,  and  the  worth  of  the  foul. 

\  Price  75  ctt 


LETTERS 

OCCASIONED    BV 

Rev.  SAMUEL  WORCESTER'S 
TWO  DISCOURSES 

ON    THE    PERPETUITY    AND    PROVISION    OF    GOd's    GRA- 
CIOUS   COVENANT    WITH   ABRAHAM   AND  HIS  SEEB. 

Deteding, 

BY  PLAIN  SCRIPTURE,  STUBBORN  FACTS,  AND  SOBER  REASON, 

SOME    OF    H!S     GROSS    MISREPRESENTATIONS,     UNFOUNDED    ASSEgr 
TJONSf    AND    SOPHISTICAL    ARGUMENTS. 


BY  DANIEL  MERRILL,  A.  M. 

PASTOR   OF   THE  CHURCH  OF   CHRIST  IN  SEDGWICK. 


0  my  people  !  they  which  lead  thee  caufe  thee  to  err,  and  deftroy  the 
way  of  thy  paths.  J/aia/j  iii.  i  a. 

1  am  againft  them  that  prophefy  falfe  dreams,  faith  the  Lord,  and  do 

tell  them,  and  eaufe  my  people  to  err  by  their  lies,   and  by  theit 
lightnefs.  "Jeremiah  xxiii.  3a. 

Even  from  the  days  of  your  fathers  ye  are  gone  away  from  mine  ordi-~ 
nances,  and  have  not  kept  them.  Malachi  iii.  7. 


BO  STO  N: 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  Sff  Loring,  N°'  2,  Cornhill. 

1807. 


District  or  Massacbvsetts,  to  wit : 

BE  IT  REMFMBERED,  That  OH  the  fourteenth  day  of  March,  in  the 
thirty-firft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, Manning  tJ*  Lo.ring,  of  the  faid  diftrift,  have  depofited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors, 
in  the  words  following,  to  ivit : — "  Letters  occafioned  by  Rev<  Samuel 
Worcefler's  Two  Difcoiirfes  on  the  Perpetuity  and  Prcvifion  of  God's 
gracious  Covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  Seed.  Detedling,  by  plaitt 
Scripture,  ftubborn  Fa(5ls,  and  fober  Reafon,  fome  of  his  grofs  Mifrep- 
rcfentations,  unfounded  Aflertions,  and  fophiflical  Arguments.  By 
Daniel  Merrill,  a.  m.  Paftor  ef  th«  Ghurch  of  Chrift  in  Sedgwick," 

In  conformity  to  the  A&  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  Adt  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
fuch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  :"  and  alfo  to  an  A£ty 
•ntitlcd,  "  An  Ad:  fupplementary  to  an  A<ft,  entitled.  An  A6t  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  l^y  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts,  and 
books,  to  the  Authors  and  Pronrietors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the  tirne^ 
therein  mentioned  ;  and,cxtentling.  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of 
deCgning,  engraving,  and  etching'  hifloricai'arid  other  prints." 

WILLIAM   S.   SHAW,   'Cieri'of  tbf  DJ/lii^i  ef  Tilafadufelt,. 


TO  ALL  WHO  FEAR  GOD. 


MEN   AND  BRETHREN, 

^ OUR  attention  has  been  often  dffred,  and  ;V 
JJill  ivijbed  for.  Truth  is  now  working  its  way  through 
darknefs  into  light ;  it  is  making  Jure  progrefsy  like  tke-rays 
$f  the  mormng ;  yet  error ^  where  it  hath  held  its  empire 
long,  will  give  place  to  truth  but  through  invincible  necejftty. 
The  luriter  of  the  following  Letters  is  not  altogether  ignorant 
of  the  influence  of  prejudice^  and  of  flrong  prepofftffions^ 
He  might  well  defpair  offuceefsy  in  his  prefent  labours ^  were 
it  not  that  truth  is  flronger  than  all  things. 

All  fuch  as  fear  Gody  have  feafons  in  which  their  heart 
is  warmed  with  love  to  God,  to  truth,  and  to  duty.  In  fuch 
precious  moments  iruth  will  he  permitted  to  fpeak.  When 
it  is  thus  with  the  godly,  I  wifj  for  their  attention  to  what 
I  here  prefent  them. 

Should  you  think  that  the  author  of  the  following  pages 
has  rebuked  Mr,  Worcejler  more  fharply  than  Paul  did 
Peter,  then,  1  pray  you,  think  again— Hath  not  Mr.  Wor- 
9efler  done  iv6rfe  than  diffembling  Peter  did  ? 

I  am  not  offended  at  Mr.  Worcefler^s  perfon,  hut  I  am 
tffended  at  the  liberties  which  he  hath  taktn,  againfl  the 
word  and  church  of  the  living  Goi>.  If  I  do  not  miflake^ 
every  candid  Chrflian  will  be  offended  at  the  fame  things ^ 
before  he  fhall  have  carefully  perufed  all  thofe  falfe  and  delu" 
ftry  arguments,  affertions,  and  inftnuations,  of  Mr.  Worcef- 
ter'sy  by  which  he  would  keep  in  credit  his  Judaizing  fcheme^ 


(     iv     ) 

and  retain  the  vail  on  many  who  begin  to  fee.  My  prayer 
to  the  Father  of  Lights  is,  that  he  ivill  fpeedily  rend  the 
vail  from  off  the  hearts  of  his  onvn  people.  Truth,  and  not 
viffory,  is  my  obje5l.  Whether  the  reader  be  a  friend  t$ 
the  nuriter,  or  the  reverfe,  is  not  a  matter  of  fo  much  folici~ 
tude  to  me,  as  that  the  reader  be  a  friend  to  himfelf ;  then 
IV ill  he  feek  for  truth,  and  receive  it,  though  it  prove y  for 
the  prefent,  painful,  and  deJlruBive  to  his  errors. 

The  fire  of  love  and  truth  mufi  burn  up  our  error t^  or  we 
and  they  mufi  be  defiroyed  together. 

Such  as  fear  God,  cannot  be  difpleafed  with  the  requefif 
that  they  will  not  be  fofwayed  by  prejudice  and  cufiom,  as  /» 
believe  Mr.  Worcefier  without  evidence,  atid  difbelieve  me, 
nuhen  the  evidence  is  fully  before  them.  If  I  have  not  fairly 
and  fully  proved  his  Sermons  to  be  erroneous  and  unfounded^ 
I  afk  not  to  be  believed ;  but  if  I  have,  I  afk  this  ftmple 
quefiion — Why  will  you  not  believe  me  ?  If  the  truth  be  fet 
in  full  view,  can  you  difbelieve  and  yet  be  innocent  ? 

Deftring  that  truth  may  prevail)  to  the  fpeedy  ruin  of  my 
own  and  the  reader^ s  errors, 

I  am  hisy  with  affe8ion, 

THE  AUTHOR. 

ScBCtvicK,  October  47,  i8o6. 


Two  T>ifcourfes,  ^c,  ilj 

■his  Jtidaizing  theory.  But  neither  in  his  text,  nor  in  any 
other  part  of  this  epiftle,  is  there  a  word  in  favour  of  his 
legal  plan.  But  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  of  it  was  writ- 
ten, purpofely  to  deftroy  fiich  a  principle,  which  began  to 
work  among  Chriftians,  even  in  the  apoftles'  days. 
' '/  In  this  epiille,  Paul  mentions  two  covenants,  one  con- 
tained in  tlie  following,  and  fimilar  words  ;  "  In  thee  fhall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blelfed."  This  covenant 
was  confirrned  of  God  in  Chrift  to  Abraham,  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before  the  other,  the  Sinai  covenant, 
was  given  ;  alfo  this  covenant  of  promife  was  made  known 
to  Abraham,  more  than  twenty  years  before  the  inJUtution 
of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  was  afterwards  in- 
corporated into  the  Sinai  covenant.  Neither  of  thefe  cov- 
enants hath  any  thing  to  do  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion, fave  the  covenant  of  ch'cumcifion  was  a  token  of 
the  former,  and  is  includ-ed  in  the  latter,  and  binds  the 
fubjeds  of  it  to  perform  all  the  legal  duties  which  that  en- 
joins. Hence  the  apoftlefcarcely  gives  fo  much  as  a  hint, 
through  the  whole  epiftle,  of  the  inftitution  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion-  Where  he  mentions  the  covenant  itfelf, 
it  is,  to  difluade  his  brethren  of  Galatia  from  the  practice 
-of  it,  and  to  urge  them  to  be  wholly  feparate  from  it. 
Greatly  the  reverfe  is  it  with  Mr.  W.  The  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  the  theme  of  his  difcourfe,  and  the  bafis  on 
which  his  principle  refts  ;  from  the  beginning,  to  the  end 
of  his  Sermons.  At  the  fame  time,  he  fully  manifefts 
throughout  that  he  has  no  corredl  idea  of  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  ;  for  he  continually  confounds  the  covenant 
of  promife  with  the  covenant  of  circumcifion.  Indeed,  he 
muft  thus  confound  covenants,  or  his  theory  would  have 
Eo  plaufibility. 

But  I  haften  to  unfold  Mr.  Worceftef's  confufed  and 
abfurd  ideas,  that  the  public  may  be  aftonifhed  at  the 
■blindnefs  and  confuficn  of  many  of  their  leaders. 

The  firft  confufed  and  abfurd  idea  of  Mr.  Worcefter's, 
which  I  (hall  now  mention,  is  contained  in  his  expofition 
of  his  text.  We  will  fet  down  his  text,  and  then  his  expo- 
fition. 

His  text  is,*  **  And  if  ye  be  Chr'ijl's,  then  are  ye  Abra^ 
ham's  feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promife.'"  His  ex- 
pofition follows,  '  If  ye  be  Chrift's,  then  are  ye  brought 


1 8  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

into  a  covenant  relation  to  Abraham,  are  juftified  in  the 
fame  manner  in  which  he  was,  and  are  entitled  to  all  the 
pri-oileges  and  hlejjings  which  were  contained  in  the  promi/es 
made  to  him  and  his  feed.* 

That  the  confufion  and  abfurdity  of  this  expofition  may 
appear,  nothing  more  is  necefTary  than  to  mention  fome  of 
the  privileges  and  bleffings  which  were  contained  in  the 
promifes  to  Abraham  and  his  feed.  Some  of  thefe  privi- 
leges and  bleffings  of  Abraham's  are,  that  in  him  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  fliould  be  bleffed  ;  that  he  {hould  be  a 
father  of  many  nations  ;  that  kings  fhould  come  out  of 
him  ;  that  the  land  of  Canaan  fhould  be  their  poffeffion  ; 
and  that  Chrift  fhould  be  of  them,  as  concerning  the  flefh, 
&c.  &c.* 

The  reader  can  judge  for  himfelf,  as  to  the  confiftency, 
or  abfurdity  of  Mr.  Worceller's  expofition.  If  every  be- 
liever in  Chrift  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  find  blejfings 
which  were  contained  in  the  promifes  made  to  Abraham 
and  his  feed,  then  is  he  corred,  otherwife  abfurd.  If  ev- 
ery believer  be  an  Abraham,  and  if  the  children  of  every 
believer  be  the  children  of  Abraham,  &c.  &c.  then  is  Mr. 
Worcefter's  notion  juft,  otherwife  it  is  confufed  and  incon- 
fiftent  M'ith  common  fenfe. 

The  next  thing  which  I  fhall  mention,  is  one  of  his  falfe 
flatements.  It  is  in  the  next  fentence  but  one,  to  the  expo- 
fition of  his  text. 

♦  It  is,'  fays  he,  '  particularly  to  be  remarked,  that  with  a 
view  to  convince  his  Galatian  brethren,  of  their  unhappy 
error,  in  refpeift  to  juftification,  he  afcends  to  the  memorable 
period  of  the  inttitution  of  the  church  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, takes  the  covenant  then  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
feed,  and  traces  it  down  in  the  tranfmiffion  of  its  privileges 
and  bleffings  to  the  Gentile  church.' 

This  propofition  is,  indeed,  as  Mr.  Worcefler  fays,  to  be 
particularly  remarked,  for  notiiing  is  more  falfe  and  delufory, 
than  is  what  he  here  aflerts.  It  is  not  only  far  from  truth, 
but  it  is  abfurd. 

It  is  far  from  truth :  for  Paul  does  not  afcend  to  the 
memorable  period  of  the  inflitution  of  the  church  in  the  family 
oi  Abraham,  but  to  ihe  period  m  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham this  promifc,  "  In  thee  fliall  all  nations  be  bleffed.'* 
This  promife  Paul, repeatedly  brings  to  view,  in  the  chapter  in 
which  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  text ;  and  this  promife  was  made 

*  Gen.  zii.  and  xvii.    Rom.  i«  $. 


Two  DifcourfeSi  ^c.  ig 

more  than  inventy  years  before  the  infiitvtion  of  the  church  in 
Abraham's  family,  Befides,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  might  have 
no  excufe  for  miftaking  the  matter,  Paul  exprefsly  tell  us, 
that  the  covenant,  of  which  he  is  writing  to  the  Galatians 
and  to  us,  and  by  which  he  difluaded  them,  and.  by  which 
he  diifuades  us,  from  adhering  to  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law  ; 
whereas  the  memorable  period  .in  which  a  church  was  infti- 
tuted  in  Abraham's  family,  was  not  four  hundred  and  ten 
years.     Let  any  who  are  able  compare  the  dates. 

Further,  if  a  church  were  inftituted  in  Abraham^s  fam- 
ily, it  was  by  the  covenant  of  circumcifion.  For,  previous 
to  the  giving  of  that  covenant,  there  is  no  more  appearance 
cf  a  church  in  his  family  than  in  Job's  or  Lot's.  To  fup- 
pofe  that  Paul  referred  the  Galatians  to  this  covenant,  to 
reprove  them  for  their  error,  in  feeking  juftification  by  the 
law,  is  doubly  abfurd  ;  for  their  very  error  confifted  in 
adhering  to  this  covenant.  Alfo,  he  told  them,  that,  upon 
their  being  circumcifed,  they  were  debtors  to  do  the  whole 
law. 

The  propofjtion  now  under  confideration  is  not  only 
falfe  and  abfurd,  but  delufory.  By  it  Mr.  Worcefter  would 
teach  his  own  people  and  the  public  much  as  the  Judaizing 
teachers  taught  the  Galatians,  that  except  they  were  cir- 
cumcifed and  kept  the  law  of  Mofes,  they  could  not  be 
faved.  He  does  not  ufe  the  fame  words  with  thefe  de- 
ceivers, but  the  leading  ideas  through  his  Sermons  appear 
to  go  upon  the  fame  principle ;  and  in  page  52,  his  words 
come  fo  nigh,  that  probably  the  perverters  of  the  Galatian 
church  would  not  be  offended  at  them.  His  words  are, 
♦  It  is  not,  indeed,  certain,  that  if  you  be  unbelieving  and 
difobedient,  your  children  will  be  finally  loft; ;  for  God 
may,  as  often  in  his  fovereign  mercy  he  does,  go  out  of  the 
limits  of  the  church.,  and  beftow  his  grace  on  thofe  who  are 
aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Ifrael,  and  ftrangers  to 
the  covenant  of  promife.  But  if,  in  this  cafe,  he  does 
beftow  grace  upon  your  children,  it  will  not  be  in  purfu- 
ance  of  any  covenant  engagement  to  you.' 

This  language  harmonized  but  too  well  with  thofe  troul- 
krs  of  the  church,  of  whom  Paul  fays,  "  /  ivould  they  were 
cut  of." 

Mr.  Worcefter's  propofition  next  to  that  which  we  have 
been  confidering  (page  8)  is,  *  The  apoftle's  whole  argu- 
ment proceeds  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  that  the 
covenant  which  was  made  with  Ahrahami  and  which  con- 


30  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejer's 

ftituted  the  church  in  his  family,  was  ftill  in  force,  and  w^s- 
never  to  be  abrogated;  that  the  Gentile  churches   ^^^^ 

ch^JX  'V^u'  '  u''"""''  ^'  "^"^^"S  one  with  the  Jewifh 
church  ;  and^tha^,  by  v.rtue  of  that  covenant,  believers  of 
e.er)  age  and  nation  were  to  be  confidered  as  the  children 
ot  Abraham,  /«/..../.;,^,  Ij  Svlne  right,  all  ihe privileges  and 
bieji^gs-  compr^fed  ni  the /r.,«^'^..  made  to  him  and  his  feed.' 
1  nis  propcfition  contains  another  of  Mr.  Worcefter'« 
falfe  ftarements  delufory  fophifms.  and  abfnrd  ideas.  This 
propofition  ,s  full  of  falfe  ftatements  anden-oneous  affc'v! 
tioris» 

In  the /^  place  he  confounds  the  covenant  which  was- 
confirmed  or  God  m  Chrift,  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
c.hon,  and  gives  h,s  readers  to  underftand  that  they  are 
both  one:  whereas  the  Bible  tells  us  that  the  latter  is  but 
the  token  (^{  tne  former,  Gen.  xvii. 

In  the  «..v/ place,  he  tells  us,  '  That  the  apoftle's  whole 
argument  proceeds  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  that 
the  covenant  which  was  made  with  Abraham,  and  which 
conptutedthe  church  m  his  family,  was  ftill  in  force,  and  ^Z 
never  to  be  abrogated.' 

The  apoftk,   inftead  of  going,  as  Mr.  Worceflcr  fays 
upon  the  fcnpture  ground,  that  the  covenant  which  wa' 
inade  with  Abraham,  and  which  confntuted  the  church  in 
lus  family,  was  ftill  in  force,  and   never  to  be  abrogated, 
does  not,  m   the  w^hole  chapter,  fo  much  as  once  mfntion 
that  covenant  by  which  a  vifible  church  was  copftituted  in 
Abraham  s  family,  unlefs  it  be  to  reprove  the  /boM  Gala- 
t.ans,  who  were  giving  heed   to  Judaizing  teachers,  who 
were  preaching  amx^ng  them  this  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
i^aul  goes,  indeed,  upon  the  plain  fcripture  ground,  and 
upon  th.5  plam  icnpture  ground  too.  that  the  g^fpel  church 
v.-as  and  is  built  upon  the  promife  made  to  Abraham  lone 
before  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  ever  mentioned* 
and  upon  the  covenant  which  was   confirmed   of  God  in 
Ghnft   four  hundred  and  tliirty  years  before  the  law,  and 
more  tha«   twenty   before  there  was    any    vifible   church 
fcrmed  m  Abraham's  family,  or  the  covenant  given  upon 
which  It  was  conftrtuted.     What  Mr.  Worcefter  here  men- 
tions  of  the  covenant  and  conftitution  of  a  church  in  Abra- 
ham s  family,   is  manifeftly   a  mere  delufory  fophifm  or- 
deception ;  for  the  apoftle  does  not  fo  much  as  once  inti^ 
mate  any  luch  thing.  • 

••  See,G*I.  iii.  8,  i;,  and  Gen.  xii.  3. 


Two  Difcourfes,  '<£fc.  Si 

3.  In  the  propofition  now  under  confideration,  Mr. 
Worcefter  tells  us,  that  the  Gentile  churches  were  em- 
braced In  that  covenant,  as  making  one  with  the  Jewi(h 
church.  Here  he  comes  out,  and  fhovvs  himfelf  to  be  one 
of  the  Judaizing  teachers  :  but  the  apoftle  fays  not  a  word 
of  any  fuch  thing. 

4.  Says  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  And  by  virtue  of  tha^t  coyc- 
nant,  believers  of  every  age  and  nation  were  to  be  confid- 

ered  as  the  children  of  Abraham.' Reply.     The  apoftle 

BO  where  fays,  that  ever  any  one  believer,  of  any  age  or 
nation,  was  to  be  confidered  as  a  child  of  Abraham  by 
virtue  of  that  covenant  by  which  a  church  was  conftituted 
in  his  family.  The  apoftle  fays,  "  If  ye  be  Chri/i's,  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  feed  ;"  not,  if  ye  be  circumcifed,  or  be 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 

The  abfurdity  oi  the  idea,  in  tlie  clofe  of  the  pr-opofition,' 
*  of  believers  inheriting,  by  divine  right,  all  the  privileges  and 
bkjftngs  comprifed  in  the  promife,  made  to  Abraham  and 
his  feed,"  has  been  already  expofed. 

Thus  falfe,  delufory,  and  abfurd  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  main 
propofition,  which  leads  to  and  introduces  his  no  lefs  falfe, 
■delufory,  and  abfurd  doctrine. 

It  may  be  pleaiing  and  profitable  to  the  reader,  to  have 
here  ftated  a  few  general  truths,  which  relate  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  may  ferve  to  explain  it. 

J.  It  was  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  promife, 
which  wa^  revealed,  and  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in 
Chrift,  that  Abraham  was  made  a  faithful  faint. 

2.  It  was  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  -or 
by  Abraham's  compliance  with  it,  that  he  and  bis  family 
were  conftituted  a  vifible  church. 

3.  It  is  by  virtue  of  the  fame  covenant  of  grace  and 
promife,  by  which  Abraham  was  made  a  faint,  that  the 
nations  cf  the  earth  aie  bleffed  in  or  by  him,  and  many  are 
made  believers  in  Chrift. 

4.  It  is  by  virtue  of  obedience  to  the  ordinances  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  and  eipecially  to  the  firft,  viz.  bapiifm,  that  believers 
are  conftituted  into  vifible  gofpel  churches. 

The  reader  underftanding  the  above  plain  truths,  we 
will  now  proceed  to  confider  the  dodrine,  which  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter would  have  us  believe  to  be  contained  in  his  teut. 

'  The  text,  then,  (fays  he)  thus  contemplated,  in  its  con- 
nexion, prefents  for  our  confideration  this  great  and  inter- 
efting  doSrine,  viz.  /«  God's  covenant  of  promife  with  Abraham 
B  2 


22 


Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Wcreefier's 


co..ain,d  in     .} l^ztrfZ:!""  '""'Y  "'"'  *W 
of  tim,.'  ■'        i"""'""""  g'neral,.^,  do„-n  to  ihi  dofe 

That,  the  public  may  at  once  fee  tV,a,  ,T..      ■ 
nexion  between  Mr.  WorcefterVw!,      ^    u    5  ".""  ">"■ 
he  ftys  it  preiint,,   I   wi  1  he'    fe.^'?''  "J^  ''"'""  wi"*.. 
three,  verfesne,;-  preceding  "  "■'  ='"-  ^""l  ">^ 

been  ,.pU  i„to   «J^  /^T  ^  ^^^  X""  -,  >■>- 

free' Aer":  rndtf,  '^"  ","  '^T^'  *"^  '-«*"  ^"^  no'; 
CI  rift  JeTu:.5"  Ve   "*  T.^^t '  1"  '^  ^'^  ^"  "^  '" 

wer\"rt-biS;:ii^=--^^^^^^^ 

have  been  baptised 'into  "A^:\:  TclP^r:^ 

cording  to  t\,^p„„:j,  oi  anurndfonf    Ye/  {im'viotc 

£.t .-   or  in  the  ':^\.  SVi^it^tr  th^'chtZ  ' '"or  1' 
oShtfo%,;:J -r   if  ^' b,^°  -i-e,  a'r'the-  p^bl" 

rst«/?  '--Cerrh- ':^^^^^^^^^ , 

uie  i^aiatians.     Faul,  by  mentioninff  in  verfe  8    the  rn^^ 

A  few  confequences  will  now  be  ftated 
t.n  ukolly,,  not  a  fingle  zdea  being  found  in  u  a.  he  fu^ 


Tiuo •  D'lfcoiirfes^  Iffc.  2-3.' 

2k  Mr.  Worcefter  appears  to  have  wholly  mifunderftood 
the- covenant  of  which  Paul  fpeaks,  in  the  chapter  whence 
he  took  bis  text  ;  this  covenant  being  compkteiy  diftinsSl 
from  the  covenant  which  gave- vilibility  to  the  church  in 
Abraham's  family. 

3.  Mr.  Worceller  is  manifeftly  far  from  knowing,  that 
the  thing,  and  the  only  thing,  which  conlHtutcd  Abraham's 
family  into  a  vifible  church,  was  his  circumcifing,  at  God's 
command,  all  the  males  in  his  houfe.  Had  Mr.  Worcefter 
liave  known  this,  he  would  have  difmilTed  his  Sermons 
before  he  delivered  them,  and  not  fo  darkened  counfel  by 
words  without  knowledge. 

4.  It  is  manifeft,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  is  full  in  fentiment 
with  thofe  who  troubled  the  Galatian  churches-;  and  that 
he  hath  perverted  his  text  and  the  intention  of  the  apoftle, 
that  he  might  defend  the  very  herefy  which  Paul  laboured' 
to  deftroy.  For  all  which  thc^e  Judaizing  teachers  en- 
deavoured, was  to  bring  the  gofpel  church  to- the  ftandard 
of  the  Jewifti ;  and- what  Mr.  Worcefter  endeavours  is,  for 
fubftance,  the  fame-thing.* 

The  public,  and  every  reader,  is  de/ired  to  hear  irve 
patiently  ;  for,  if  the  Lord  will,  1  have  many  things  yet  to 
fay,  that  I  may,  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jefus, 
deliver  many  from  the  Judaizing  tenets  of  Mr.  Worcefter 
and  his  brethren. 

In  the  mean  time,  may  Jefus  pofTefs  my  heart,  and  the 
public  my  beft.  vallies  and  zealous  labour  for  their  good. 
I  am,  &c. 


We  appeal  to -the  Bible,  to  Jliibborn  fads,  and  to 
common  fenfe. . 


LETTER     im 

MEN,  BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

IN  my -la ft  I  fet  before  you  Mr.  Wbrcefter's- 
text,  dodrine,  and  feveral  things  connefled  with  them*; 
and  mentioned  the  covenant  of  which  Paul  fpake,  and 

*  Sec  page.  8,  9,anU  every  other  pageia  tij  Sermons, 


24  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejicr's 

fhewed  how  Mr.  WorceRer  millook  the  whole  matter.  In 
this  you  may  expect  to  find  the  manner  in  which  he  handles 
his  iubjed,  and  Ibme  of  his  arguments,  expoied. 

His  general  method  of  difcourfe  was, 

*  I.  To  fhow  that  the  covenant  which  was  made  with 
Abraham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  formed  in  his 
family,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue 
throughoiit  all  generations ;    and, 

'  II.  To  fhow  more  particularly  what  provifion  was 
made  in  that  covenant  for  the  continuance  of  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  for  the  tranfmiflion  of  the  bleffings  con- 
tained in  it.' 

His  next  words  are,  *  It  cannot  be  neceflary,  in  a  la- 
boured manner^  to  prove,  that  by  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  a  church  was  formed  in  his  family.*  Here  he 
takes  for  granted,  or  as  not  neceflary  to  be  in  a  laboured 
manner  proved,  the  very  fubjed  which,  of  all  others,  it 
became  him  to  prove  thoroughly,  if  he  could.  Had  he 
but  proved,  or  will  he  now  prove,  that  the  confirmation  of 
that  covenant,  of  which  Paul  fpeaks,  Gal.  iii.  8,  17,  or 
that  the  being  aBually  interejled  i-n  that  covenant  was  what 
conftituted  Abraham  and  his  family  a  vifible  church,  then 
would  we  grant  him  all  he  afks.  But  ftubborn  fafts  will 
forever  keep  it  beyond  his  power  to  prove  any  fuch  thing. 
For,  as  has  been  before  obferved,  the  promife  that  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  (hould  be  blefTed  in  Abraham,  and 
this  covenant  alfo  was  confirmed,  and  yet  there  was  no 
vifible  church  in  his  family  for  more  than  tiuenty  years 
after :  nor  was  it  conftituted  till  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion  was  given,  and  in  full  pradlice.  Thefe  are  ftubborn 
fadts,  which  Mr.  Worcefter  cannot  remove,  till  he  blot  out 
the  page  of  revelation. — Thus  the  firft  principle,  and  the 
whole  foundation,  on  which  he  built  his  difcourfes,  and  his 
oppofition  againft  the  gofpel  church,  being  removed,  we 
might  leave  the  fuperftrudure  to  fall  of  itfelf,  were  it  not 
that  he  has  many  difingenuous  remarks  and  unfounded 
affertions  fcattered  through  the  whole  of  it. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  done  as  is  ufual  for  the  ingenioufly 
erroneous  to  do  ;  in  the  firft  place,  tah  for  granled  the  JirJI 
principles  which  were  neceftary  to  be  proved,  yet  incapable 
of  proof,  and  then  proceed  with  confiderable  plaufibility. 

Says  he,  (page  10)  'Several  arguments  in  fupport  of 
the  propofition,  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
and  his  feed,  and  confequently  the  church  formed  by  it, 
did  not  ceafe  on  the  i]^iodadioa  oi  the  gofpel  difpeniAtioni> 


Tvjo  Dlfcourfes-^  Isfc.  2-^, 

but  were  intended  to  continue  througliout  all  generation.-)*, 
1  will  now,  my  brethren^  fubmit  to  your  confideration.' 

It  is  fufficient  jull  to  remark,  that  the  co'venant  which 
gave  vifible  exiilence-  to  the  church  in  Abraham's  family 
did  ceafe,  an  J  was  never  intended  to  continue  in  the  vifible 
church  of  God,  but  till  the  feed .  Q\o\Ad  come  to  whom  the 
promife  was  made.  Paul  is  my  firll  vi-itnefs.  Gal.  v.  5. 
"  If  ye  be  circumcifed  Chriil  fhali  profit  you  nothing." 
Paul  is  my  fecond  vvitnefs,  i  Cor.  vii.  r8.  "  Is  any  called 
in  uncircumcifion  ?  let  him  not  become  clrcumcifed.'^  This 
covenant  of  circumcifion  was  the  only  covenant  which  ga\^e 
viability  to  a  church  in  Abraliam's  family.  Paul  told  all 
believing  Gentiles,  and- allJews,  wha  were  not  circumcifed, 
that  they  ought  not  to  keep  this  covenant.  It  ought, 
therefcjre,  to  have  ceafed  ;  and  it  did  generally,  fave  where 
Paul's  oppofers  kept  it  alive.  My  third  witnefs  is,  the  apof- 
tles,  eiders,  and-  the  whole  churclT  at  Jerufalemi  who  lent 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  they  need  not  ohferve  the  covenant  of  cW" 
cumctfion.   See  Acts  xv. 

Mr.  Wbrcefter's  arguments  are  now  to  be  confidered. 

His  frfl  is,  '  By  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  Ire 
v.'as  conllituted  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe.' 

Anf'wer.  No  perlbn,  who  underftands  the  controverfy 
between  thofe  who  hold  to  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  and 
thofe  who  plead  for  the  continuance  of  the  Jewifh,  will 
deny  the  truth  of  the  propofition,  which  contains  Mr.  Wor— 
cefter's  firft  argument ;  but  every  perfon  who  has  any  con- 
fiderable  knowledge  of  the  fubjeftj  will  deny  that  the  argu- 
ment hath  a'ny  connexion  with  the  thing  to  be  proved  by 
if.  Let  Mr.  Worcefter  only  prove,  that  Abraham  was,  by 
the  covenant  of  circum,ci^.on,conftituted  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe,  aiul  we  will  grant  his  argument  to  pof- 
fefs  weight ;  but  till  he  does,  his  argument  is  defervedty 
confidered  without  ioree. 

But,  fays  he,  page  12,  'If  we  be  members  of  a  different 
churrh,  formed  by  a  different  covenant  from  that  of  Abra- 
ham, what  relation  have  we  to  Abraham  ?  in  what  refpeft 
are  we  his  children  ?  how  is  it  that  we  are  bleffed  with 
him  ?' 

Anfiuer.  Not  by  being  in  a  vifible  church  ftate,  either 
Jewifti  or  Chriilian  ;  but  by  being  the  children  of  God  by 
faith  in  Chrift  Jefus,  Gal.  iii.  25,  29,  and  according  to  the 
promife,  Gen.  xii.  3.  xxii.  18.  Beiides,  Abraham  pofTeffed 
faith,  and  received  the  promifes,  not  whilft  in  a  church , 
ftate.j  not  in  circumcifiott,   but  in  uncircumcifion.     J.uft  fo,  if. 


26  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJier*s 

ever  we  be  blefled  with  faithful  Abraham,  it  fhould  be, 
-not  while  we  be  in  a  church  ftate,  but  before  we  be  bap- 
tized ;  then  we  may  receive  baptifm  as  Abraham  did  cir- 
cumcifion,  as  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  or  fmcerity  of  our 
faith.  Nor  did  Abraham,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  (page  12) 
would  have  us  believe,  receive  the  promifes)  while  being 
the  covenant  father  of  a  vifible  church  ;  for  when  he  re- 
ceived the  promifes  there  was  no  vifible  church. 

His  Jecond  argument  is,  ♦  God's  covenant  of  promife  with 
Abraham  comprifed  all  the  bleffings  and  privileges  ever 
-promifed  to  believers  and  to  the  church.' 

Suppofe  we  grant  all  this  too,  what  hath  It  to  do  with 
the  bufmefs  on  hand  ?  how  does  it  {how  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  but  the  Jewifh  church  in  continuation  ?  for  the 
covenant  of  promife  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift,  and 
made  manifeft  to  Abraham,  before  the  Jewifh  chuTch  ex- 
iftei  ;  and  the  bleffings  and  privileges  promised  to  believers, 
may  be  enjoyed  by  the  gofpel  church  after  the  Jewjfli  is 
abolifhed. 

Says  Mr.  Worcefter,  page  14,  *  I  will  eftablifh  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  fays 
the  Lord  to  Abraham,  for  an  everlafting  covenant,  to  be  a 
Gcd  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  and  in  thee, 
and  in  thy  feed  fhall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  ble/Ted.' 
All  this  is  trne  ;  but  what,  in  particular,  hath  this  to  do 
with  the  conftituting  of  Abraham's  family  into  a  vifible 
church  ?  Mr.  Worcefter  fubjoins,  •  Thefe  promifes,  my 
brethren,  are  of  vaft  comprehenfion.'  Certainly  they  are. 
They,  by  implication,  comprehend  all  the  bleffings  and 
privileges  which  have  been  enjoyed  by  the  Jewifh  church  ; 
and  all  which  have  been,  or  fhall  be,  by  the  gofpel  church. 
Yet  there  is  not  fo  much  as  the  leaft  hint,  in  any  one  of 
them,  that  they  comprehend  what  he  brought  them  to 
prove — that  the  Jewilh  and  gofpel  churches  are  one  and 
the  fame  church. 

Again,  fays  he,  on  the  fame  page,  *  To  Abraham  and 
his  kedy  fays  the  apoftle,  were  the  promifes  made.  To 
Abraham  and  his  feed,  comprehending  Meffiah,  and  all 
true  believers  as  included  in  him,  were  made  the  promifes, 
which  comprife  all  the  bleffings  ever  to  be  conferred  upon 
the  cliurch  and  people  of  God.'  If  we  grant  all  this,  ftill 
it  hath  nothing  to  do  with  the  point  in  queftion,  fave  it  be 
in  his  application  of  it,  to  deceive  the  credulous,  and  aug- 
ment the  darkuefs  of  the  blind. 


Two  Di/cour/es^  Isfc,  27 

Mr.  Wercefter  adds,  «  Was  this  covenant  then,  fo  vaftly 
comprehenfive  with  refpeft  to  its  bleflings,  ever  to  be  abro- 
gated ?'     We  reply,   Surely  not. 

He  afks  again,  '  Was  the  church  which  was  formed  by 
it,  and  fo  richly  endued,  ever  to  be  aboliihed  ?'  Our  anfwer 
is,  Firft,  the  vifible  church  in  Abraham's  family  was  never 
formed  by  this  covenant ;  and  fecondly,  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  church  was  never  fo  richly  endued,  nor  was  ever 
any  other  church,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  fuppofes.  The  prom- 
ifes  were  not  made  to  Abraham  and  the  church,  Jewifh  or 
Chriflian^  but  to  him  and  his  feed,  which  is  Chrift. 

He  again  afks,  '  Was  there  to  be  another  covenant,  com- 
prehending more  and  greater  blefTmgs,  another  church, 
more  largely  and  richly  endued  V    Our  reply  is.   No,  no. 

But  I  am  tired  of  fuch  queftions,  which  are  wholly  from 
the  point.  Mr.  Worcefter  appears  to  have  forgotten  his 
fubje(fl:,  or  to  have  no  argument  which  is  applicable. 
Should  he  tell  us  that  the  Englifti  are  white,  and  therefore 
the  Africans  are  of  the  fame  complexion,  his  pofition  and 
argument  would  be  of  equal  aptitude  and  force  with  what 
he  hath  as  yet  faid. 

His  note,  pages  17,  18,  (hould  have  a  m.oment's  atten- 
tion, for  by  it,  it  is  manifefl.  that  he  is  wholly  unacquainted 
with  the  feiitiments  of  his  opponents,  as  to  the  covenant  of 
promife,  mentioned  Gen.  xii.  3.  xxii.  18.  Gal.  v.  8,  17. 
and  in  many  other  places.  *  As  nothing  (fays  he)  could 
be  more  unfounded,  fo  nothing  could  be  more  derogative 
of  the  honour  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  than  the  fentiment, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed  was 
only  a  temporal  covenant,  and  included  only  temporal 
bleffings.'  Had  he  been  but  fmally  informed  as  to  the 
Baptift  fentiment,  with  relation  to  the  above  mentioned 
covenant  of  promife,  he  could  never  have  honeftly  fuggeft- 
ed,  that  they  hold  the  fentiment  which  he  in  his  note  im- 
plicitly charges  to  their  account. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  third  argument  is  now  to  be  confidered, 
and  it  is  in  thefe  words — '  The  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed,  is  the  covenant  of  which,  in  the  New 
Teftament,  Chrift  is  faid  to  be  the  Mediator,  and  which  is 
defignated  as  the  covenant  to  be  eftabliftied  with  tlie  churcl* 
in  the  days  of  the  gofpel.  For  this  i§  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  After  thofe  days,  faith' 
the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  tlieir  mind,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts  :  and  I  will  be  tlieir  God,  and  they 
ihall  be  my  people.*     Very  well;  but  this  ts  not  the  core« 


sS  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ier^s 

Eant  of  circumcifion,  by  which  the  Jewifh  church  was  con- 
ftituted,  or  by  which  Abraham's  famiiy  was  formed  into  a 
vilible  church.  This  is  the  new  and  better  covenant,  which 
hath  better  promifes  than  had  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
We  Itill  fee  that  Mr.  Worceller's  argument  makes  nothing 
to  his  purpofe. 

Page  19,  he  tells  us,  'The  Sinai  covenant,  the  Mofaic 
"  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances,  as  it  was 
added  but  for  temporary  purpofes,  has  waxed  old,  and  is 
•^^aniftied  away.'  Then  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  gone 
-with  it :  for,  fays  Paul,  "  I  tefiify  to  every  man  that  is  cir- 
gumcifed,  that  be  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  lanv^^  Gal.  v.  3. 

What  Mr.  Worceiler  aiferts  in  pages  19  and  20,  ought 
tQ  arreft  the  attention  of  the  public  ;  for  in  thefe  pages  he 
hath,  to  carry  his  Judaizing  fcheme,  direftly  contradided 
the  word  of  the  Lord  by  both  Jeremiah  and  Paul.  His 
words  are,  '  As  the  Lord  faid  to  Abraham,  /  nuill  ejlablijh 
my  covenant  betiveen  rue  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee, — to  be 
a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  fo  he  faid  to  Ifrael 
in  Egtpt,  I  ivdl  take  yen  to  me  for  a  people,  and  /  iv'dl  be  to 
you  a  God ;  and  fo  he  faid  concerning  the  houfe  of  Ifrael 
and  the  hoife  of  Judah  in  the  days  of  the  gofpel,  I  will  put 
my. law  in  their  irtiuard parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts; 
and  I  will  be  their  God,  and  they  (hall  be  my  people. 
The  covenant,  or  the  great  and  leading  promife  of  the  covenant^ 
as  expreifed  in  thefe  feveral  injlances,  is  the  fame. — On  the 
Jlighieji  infpeSion,  it  is  plain  that  the  corENANT,  mentioned  in  the 
feveral  injlances  now  before  us,  is  one  and  the  same  ; — and 
in  each  of  the  inftances,  the  great  promife  is,  To  be  a  God  to 
the  church,  and  to  the  seed  of  the  church.* 

Here  Mr  Worcefter  hath  dared  to  contradift  the  word 
of  the  Lord  in  dired  terms  ;  and  to  this  he  hath  been  com- 
pelled, that  he  might  fupport  his  Judaizing  fcheme,  his 
anjicl^riftian  error. 

.  ThVword  of  the  Lord  is,  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  32,  33,  "  Behold, 
the-d^^s  come,  faith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  cov' 
cn{V^;,%r\th  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  and  with  the  houfe  of  Judah  ; 
NQT-ii^ccording  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers^ 
iri  tn^:day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them 
put  Qil-jt^ie  land  of  Egypt ;  {  which  my  covenant  they  brake, 
altha^Si  I  was  an  huiband  unto  them,  faith  the  Lord;) 
but  fl^  Jhall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  xh^,- houfe 
tf;,Ifrafl>,:After  thofe  days,  faith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my 
law frt-^^^fjr.jn ward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and 
will  be^t^^-  God,  and  they  fhall  be  my  people."     ii^xQ 


Two  Difcou?fes,  ^c.  29 

-Mr.  Worcefter  aflerts,  that  God's  covenant  with  the  houfe 
of  Ifrael  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  tiajs  of  the  go/pel,  are  one 
and  the  same.  God  faith,  that  the  one  is  not  according  to 
the  other. 

The  word  of  the  Lord  by  Paul,  Heb.  viii.  8,  9,  10.  is, 
*«  Behold,  the  days  come  (faith  the  Lord)  when  I  will 
make  a  n;io  covenant  with  the  houfe  of  Ifrael,  and  with  the 
hotife  of  Judah  :  not  according  to  the  ccvetmnt  that  I  made 
with  their  fathers,  in  the  day  when  I  took  them  by  the  hand 
to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  &c. 

How  long  (hall  the  religious  world  be  deceived,  by  men 
who  make  a  bufinefs  of  wrefting,  perverting,  and  contra- 
diding  the  word  of  the  Lord  ! 

Mr.  Worcefter  not  only  wrefts,  perverts,  and  contradidts 
the  fcriptures,  but  he  alfo  adds  to  them,  as  we  fhall  have 
repeated  occalion  to  {how.  One  inftance  we  have  in  the 
words  juft  quoted  from  page  20  ;  '  And  (fays  he)  in  each 
of  the  inftances,  the  great  promife  is,  To  be  a  God  to  the 
church,  and  to  the  feed  of  the  church.^ — '  To  be  a  God  to  the  feed 
of  the  church.'  This  is  clear  addition,  for  which  he  hath  rea- 
fon  to  expedl  God  will  reprove  him.  For  in  this  inftance 
he  not  only  adds  to  God's  word,  but  manifeftly  contradifts 
it.  For,  fays  Paul,  Gal.  iii.  16.  "To  Abraham  and  his 
feed  were  the  promifes  made.  He  faith  not,  And  to  feedsy 
as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  oncy  And  to  thy  feed,  which  is  Chrift." 
Befides,  if  the  great  promife  is  to  the  feed  of  the  church, 
what  then  became  of  this  promife,  as  to  xhefeed  of  the  churchy 
in  Abraham's  family  ?  Out  of  perhaps  a  thouf^nd  members, 
only  the  feed  of  Ifaac  manifeftly  blefTed,  and  but  one  of 
his,  even  Jacob.  Into  what  abfurdities  does  Mr.  Worcef- 
ter's  theory  drive  him  ! 

Page  2  3,  fays  he,  <  So  plain  from  the  fcriptures  it  is, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is  continued  under 
the  gofpel,  and  therefore  that  the  church  formed  by  it  is 
alfo  ftili  continued.'  As  Mr.  Worcefter  fat  out  with  con- 
fufed  ideas,  or  without  any  idea,  of  that  covenant  by  which 
a  vifibie  church  was  conftituted  in  Abraham's  family,  fo 
he  proceeds  on  in  darknefs.  His  argument  in  plain  Englifli 
is  this — Vhe  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham,  to 
be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  feed,  is  continue.d  under  the 
gofpel ;  therefore  the  church  formed  by  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  ftill  continued.  Here  his  antecedent  and 
confequewt  have  no  connexion  ;  the  one  «s  trucy  the  other 
falft. 


2,0  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

Mr.  Worcefter's  note,  page  23.  is  not  pleafing,  for  it  is 
not  true.  The  principal  idea  in  it  is,  *  From  this  fource 
(the  unfcripturat  blending  of  the  Abrahamic  and  Sinai  cove- 
nants together)  fprang  the  error  of  the  legal  Jews,  in  for- 
mer ages ;  and  from  this  fame  fource  has  fprung  the  error 
of  the  denters  of  the  Ahrahamic  co'oenant  and  church,  or  'f.e 
Antipsedobaptilts,  in  modern  times.' 

Anjiver.  A  more  unjuft  ftatement,  or  a  more  illib'^ril 
fuggeftion,  I  prefume  was  never  made  by  the  man  of  hn. 
Biit  before  we  fhall  have  done  with  Mr.  Worcefter,  we 
fhall  find  he  has  many  fimilar  ones.  As  to  the  legal  Jews, 
we  will  pafs  them  ;  but  as  to  the  Antipaedobaptills,  we  afk, 
Do  they,  in  modern  times,  or  did  they  ever  at  any  time, 
deny  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ?  Our  anfwer  is.  No  :  nor  is 
Mr.  Worcefter  able  to  mention  a  time  in  which  they  denied 
it.  They  deny  h"s  perverted  ufe  of  it.  They  deny  that 
the  covenant  which  was  manifefted  to  Abraham  in  Ur,  or 
Haran,  and  which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  that  covenant 
by  which  a  vifible  church  was  formed  in  Abraham's  family. 
But  they  have  never  denied,  nor  have  they  the  lead  inclina- 
tion to  deny,  that  covenant,  which  promifed  to  Abraham, 
that  in  him  and  in  his  feed  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
fnould  be  blefled  :  nay,  they  believe  in  this  covenant,  and 
hope  to  fhare  in  the  bleflings  contained  in  it. 

How  long  fhall  thofe  who  lead  God's  people,  caufe  thera 
to  err  from  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord  ! 

I  am,  &c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jtuhhorn  fads,  and  to 
common  ferje. 


LETTER      IV. 

KIIN,   BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

JL  OU  will,  no  doubt,  join  with  me  in  fenti- 
■:ir.ent,  that  Mr.  Woreefter's  arguments  ought  to  be  critically 
examined  ;  and  that  when  a  ruler  in  Ifrael  comes  tcrward, 
with  fet  purpofe  to  impofe  his  errors  on  the  public,  his 


Two  Difcourfesy  ^c,  .  31 

arguments  fhould  be  fully  inveftigated  and  thoroughly  re- 
futed. I  muft,  therefore,  call  your  attention  to  his  nejtt 
argument,  which  is, — 

Fourth.  *  1  he  church  under  the  gofpel  is  uniformly  in 
the  fcriptures  reprefented  as  being  the  lame  church,  or  a 
continuation  of  the  fame  church,  which  v/as  formed  in  the 
family  of  Abraham.' 

The  propontions  on  which  he  formed  his  preceding  ar- 
guments we  have  cheerfully  granted  to  be  true,  and  iliowed 
that  they  have  no  relation  v/ith  his  fubjeft,  which  he  would 
eftablifh  by  them  ;  but  this  argument,  or  the  propofition 
on  which  it  is  built,  has  no  truth  in  it.  The  fcriptures  give 
no  fuch  reprefenlation,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  here  tells  us  that 
they  uniformly  do  ;  at  leaft,  I  find  no  fuch  place.  I  find 
no  place  where  the  fcriptures  give  fo  much  as  a  diftant  hint 
that  the  church  under  the  gofpel  is  but  a  continuation  of 
the  Jewifh  church.  The  fcriptures  explicitly  teftify  juft 
the  contrary  from  what  Mr.  Worcefter  afferts. — But  we 
will  hear  him  illuftrate  and  enforce  his  argument  a  little. 

Says  he,  page  24,  '  It  would  be  very  remarkable  indeed, 
if  this  was  not  the  cafe.  It  would  be  very  remarkable 
indeed,  if,  in  the  fcriptures,  Abraham  and  his  feed  were 
reprefented  as  making  two  or  more  diftind  and  quite  dif- 
ferent families  ;  or  if  the  children  of  Abraham  under  the 
gofpel,  who  are  only  heirs  according  to  tlie  promife  made 
to  him,  were  reprefented  as  compofing  a  church,  entirely 
diftinft  and  different  from  that  which  was  founded  in  the 
family  of  their  father  :  but  fuch  a  reprefentation  is,  in  the 
fcriptures,  no  where  to  be  found.' 

Thus  Mr.  Worcefter  comes  out  in  full,  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  but  a  continuation  of  the  church  formed  in  Abra- 
ham's family.  We  might  have  left  him  to  poflefs  his 
opinion  in  quietnefs,  had  he  not  have  attempted  to  per- 
fuade  the  public  that  the  fcriptures  fay  the  fame  thing  ; 
but  as  the  matter  is,  we  wifli  the  public,  and  Mr.  Worcefter 
alfo,  to  hear  a  few  words,  which  the  fcriptures  fay  on  this 
fubjeifi-. 

Paul,  fpeaking  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  of  the 
church  as  made  up  of  both,  fays,  Eph.  ii.  14,  15.  "  For 
he  (that  is,  Chrift)  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one^ 
and  hath  broken  doivn  the  middle  tvall  of  partition  between 
us  ;  having  aboljjhed  in  his  flefh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances;  for  to  make  in 
himfelf  of  tivain  one  nepf  man.''  Here,  if  I  underftand  the 
apoftle  corre(ftly,  and  the  public  will  judge,  Paul  direftlf 


32  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJier*s 

contradidls  what  Mr.  Worcefter  affirms  the  fcnptures  uni- 
forinly  reprefent.  Mr.  Worcerter  fays  the  gofpel  church  is 
the  old  one  continued,  the  apoiUe  fays  it  is  a  neiv  one  :  the 
pubhc  will  judge  whether  Mr.  Worcefter  or  Paul  is  to  be 
credited.  .; 

Daniel,  ch.  ii.  44.  whilft  interpreting  Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream,  fpeaking  of  the  gofpel  church  r r  kingdopi,  fays, 
"  And  in  the  days  of  ihrfe  kings  ft  all  the  God  of  heaven  Jet  up 
a  kingdom,  which  {hall  never  be  deftroyed  :  and  the  kingdom 
fhall  not  be  left  to  other  people,  but  it  fhall  break  in  pieces 
and  confume  all  thefe  kingdoms,  and  it  fliall  (land  forever." 
Here  the  prophet  Daniel  fays,  "  7J6f  God  of  heaven  JJjall  fet 
up  a  kingdom,"  within  a  certain  limited  period,  between  the 
exiftence  of  the  Babylonifh  kingdom  and  the  deftru(5tion  of 
the  Roman.  Mr.  Worcefier  fays,  the  God  of  heaven  fhall 
continue,  enlighten,  and  enlarge  the  old  "Jeivtjh  kingdom,  or 
church.  The  public  will  believe  whom  they  pleafe,  Mr. 
Worcefter,  or  the  prophet  Daniel. 

Jefus  Chrift  faid  to  the  Jews,  Matt.  iv.  17.  ••Repent: 
for  the  kingdom  of  Leaven  (the  gofpel  church)  is  at  hand." 
Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  The  old  Jcwfh  church,  or  kingdom, 
was  about  to  be  revived 

Again,  fays  the  Lord,  John  iii.  3.  ••  Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  fee  the  kingdom  of  God  :"  that  is, 
none  but  fuch  as  are  born  again,  are  qualified  fubjeds  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  can  be  interefted  in  its  bleflings. 
Mr.  Worcefter,  if  I  do  not  miftake  him,  fays,  If  the  good 
man  of  the  houfe  believe,  all  who  are  in  his  houfe  may  fee 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  do  ^  by  divine  right  inherit  all  the 
hlejfmgs  and  privileges  of  the  gofpel  church,  this  kingdom  of  God.* 
The  public  will  Itill  judge  whom  to  believe. 

The  fcriptures  fay,  that  the  converted  Jews  were,  in  the 
apcftles'  days,  added  to  the  gofpel  church  (A<5ls  iii.)  Mr. 
Worcefter  fays,  the  Jewifh  and  gofpel  churches  aie  one; 
and  of  confequence,  the  converted  Jews  could  not  be  added 
to  the  gofpel  church,  for  tliey  belonged  to  it  from  their 
childhood  or  infancy. 

The  apoftle  to  the  Hebrevvs,  ch.  xiii.  10.  fays,  ''We  have 
an  altar,  whereof //>f_y  have  no  right  to  eat  -who  ferve  the 
tabernacle  c''  that  is,  thofe  who  abide  with  \.hG  Jeivifj  church, 
have  no  right  to  gofpel  ordinances.  Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  the 
Chriftian  altar  and  the  Jewifh  tabernacle  are  fubftantially 
the  fame,  or  the  Jewifh  and  gofpel  churches  are  both  one  ; 
and  therefore,  fuch  as  ferve  the  one,  have  a  right  to  eat  of 
the  other. 


Two  Di/cour/es,  ^c,  .  53 

This  is  but  a  fmall  fample  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  difagree- 
ment  with  the  fcriptures  :  we  ihall  fee  more  foon. 

In  pages  24,  25,  Mr.  Worcefter  gives  us  a  large  quota- 
tion from  the  fixtieth  chapter  of  Ifaiah.  He  brought  it 
forward  to  prove  that  the  Jewifh  and  goipel  churches 
are  one  and  the  fame.  He  tells  us,  <  that  the  whole  chap- 
ter is  in  point,  but  a  part  may  fuffice  as  a  fpecimen.'  Had 
he  given  us  the  whole,  every  reader  might  have  feen  that 
every  part  was  out  of  point,  as  to  w^hat  lie  would  prove  by- 
it.  The  2  ift  verfe  informs  Mr.  Worcefter,  that  this  chapter 
knows  nothing  of  this  Judaizing  fcheme.  The  prophet 
addreffes  this  chapter  to  the  gofpel  church  ;  and  in  verfe 
2 1 ,  fays  to  her,  '  Thy  people  alfo  fhail  be  all  righteous  J** 
This  was  never  true  of  the  Jewilh  church,  nor  of  any  church 
formed  after  the  model  of  the  Jevv^ifh.  This  promife  was. 
never  made  concerning  the  Jewifli  national  church ;  but 
to  Zion,  the  people  of  God,  for  the  comfort  of  the  pious 
few,  who  were  waiting  for  the  confolat'wn  of  the  fpiritual 
Ifraelites.  This  promife  does  not  belong  to  any  church, 
nor  was  it  ever  fulfilled  to  any,  fave  to  the  gofpel  churchy 
to  the  church  formed  according  to  the  commandment  and 
pattern  given — of  none  but  believers.  Thus,  had  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter quoted  the  whole  chapter,  it  would  not  only  have  been, 
totally  from  his  purpofe,  but  it  might  have  been  feen  by- 
all  his  readers,  that  the  promifes  in  it  did  not  apply  to  the 
old  Jewilh  church,  nor  to  the  modern  Jewifh  churches,  like 
his  own,  and  all  others  which  are  compofed  of  believing 
parents  and  their  unrighteous  children  ;  but  to  the  churchy 
whofe  members  are  baptized  upon  a  profeffion  of  faith,  or 
upon  their  being  manifeftly  all  righteous. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  other  remarks  and  fcripture  paffages, 
under  this  argument,  appear  equally  applicable  with  the 
above  ;  not  one  of  them  having  any  relation  to  the  fubjeft 
which  he  wifhes  to  prove.  When  a  man  fets  off  in  a  wron? 
diredion,  he  gains  nothing  by  continuing  his  courfe. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  Jifth  argumer.tative  propofition  is, — 
«  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  is  exprefsly  declared 
to  be  an  everlafting  or  perpetual  covenant  j  a  covenant  to 
continue  to  the  lateft  generations,' 

Reply.  By  covenant,  muft  be  here  m.-'ant,  either — firft, 
that  covenant  which,  by  way  of  eminence,  and  on  account 
of  the  promifes  contained  in  it,  is  called  the  covenant  of 
grace  ;  or,  fecondly,  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  If  the 
firft  be  intended,  we  by  no  means  deny  but  it  is  an  ever- 
c  2 


34  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

lafting  covenant,  and  never  in  time  nor  in  eternity  to  be 
forgotten  :  yet  this  covenant  is  not,  as  has  already  been 
fully  Ihown,  what  gave  vifibility  to  a  church  in  Abraham's 
family.  If  the  fecond  be  the  one  meant,  then  its  everlaft- 
ing  continuance  is  equal  to  the  everlafting  inheritance 
which  was  given  to  the  feed  of  Abraham  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.  This  covenant  of  circumcifion  was  commanded, 
and  this  promifed  inheritance  in  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
given,  in  Gen.  xvii.  Bo'h  are  faid  to  be  everlafting,  yet 
in  a  limited  fenfe  ;  for  when  the  Romans,  under  Titus  and 
Vefpafian,  deftroyed  tlie  Jewifti  church  and  nation,  their 
inheritance  was  removed,  and  their  covenant  of  circumcifion 
was  of  no  ufe,  fave  to  continue  them  a  diftind  people,  that 
they  might  be  a  reproach,  a  taunt,  and  a  by-word,  among 
all  nations  ;  and  alio  to  make  it  manlfeft  in  future,  that 
God's  predi(5tions  by  the  prophets  were  of  him.  But  the 
public  is  defired  to  notice,  that  whatever  Mr.  Worcefter 
might  intend  by  the  everlafting  covenant,  that  it  hath  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  main  obje(fl  which  he  would  eftablifh  by 
it,  namely,  that  the  gofpel  church  and  Jewifh  are  one  and 
the  fame  church  :  for  that  covenant  by  which  the  Jewifh 
church  was  conftituted,  had  nothing  to  do  with  tlie  forma- 
tion of  the  gofpel  church. 

After  Mr.  Worcefter  had  adduced  as  many  texts  as  he 
pleafed,  which  were  foreign  from  his  point,  he  fays,  page 
31,  *  Such,  my  hearers,  is  a  compendious  view  of  the  fcrip- 
ture  proofs,  that  the  covenant  which  was  made  with  Abra- 
iiam,  and  by  which  the  church  was  conftituted  in  his  fam- 
ily, was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue  throughout 
all  generations.  I  fay,  a  compendious  view  ;  for  in  order 
to  give  an  ample  and  complete  view,  we  fliould  be  obliged 
to  prefent  the  whole  fcriptures  in  their  connexion.  I'he 
whole  fcriptures,  in  their  connexion  teftify,  that  Abraham 
is,  under  God,  the  father  of  the  church  ;  that  to  liim  and 
his  feed  all  the  promifes  were  made  ;  that  the  church,  built 
on  the  foundation  of  the  apoftks  and  prophets,  is  one  ;  that 
the  covenant  confirmed  in  Chrift,  with  Abraham  and  his 
feed,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Mofaic  difpenfation,  was  never  to  be  dif- 
annulled.' 

Here  Mr.  Worcefter  does,  as  he  has  done  in  all  his  pre- 
ceding arguments,  mix  truth  and  error  together.  We  all 
grant,  and  fully  believe,  that  the  covenant  which  was  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
before  th&'  law,  wa?  never  to  be  difannulled.     But  we  all 


Tvjo  Difcourfes,  feV.  35 

deny,  and  fully  difbelieve,  that  the  church  in  Abraham's 
family  was  formed  by  the  giving  or  by  the  obferving  of 
that  covenant ;  and  Paul,  as  we  have  already  obferved, 
fhows  us,  and  declares  to  us,  by  giving  us  the  year  in  which 
that  covenant  was  confirmed,  that  it  was  not.  At  the  time 
of  the  confirmation  of  this  covenant,  there  was  no  vifible 
church  in  Abraham's  family,  nor  for  many  years  after. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has,  through  all  his  arguments,  taktn  for 
granted  the  only  thing  wliich  it  was  neceifary  to  prove. 
Had  he  only  proved  this  one  thing,  namely,  That  the  cov- 
enant of  promife,  which  was  manilelled  to  Abraham  in 
Ur,  or  Haran,  and  confirmed  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  the  covenant  which  confti- 
tuted  his  family  into  a  vifible  church  ;  and  that  all  believ- 
ers, who  are  interefted  in  this  covenant  in  gofpel  times, 
are,  of  necenary  confequence,  in  the  vifible  gofpel  church  ; 
and  that  the  being  interelted  in  this  covenant,  did  in  Abra- 
ham's time,  and  does  in  gofpel  times,  conllitute  the  iavoured 
perfons,  and  no  others,  members  of  the  vifible  church  ; 
then  would  we  not  have  contended  with  him  againft  the 
onenefs  and  Jamenefs  of  the  Jewifli  and  gofpel  churches. 
But  he  has  done  no  fuch  thing  :  nor  does  he  appear  to  have 
done  any  thing  elfe,  fave  it  be  to  prove  what  no  Baptift 
denies,  and  then  to  take  for  granted  what  neither  faint  nor 
fmner  fliould  ever  believe.  He  proves,  that  the  covenant 
which  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before  the  law,  was  never  to  be  difannuUed. 
This  we  all  believe. — He  takes  for  granted,  that  the  Jeivljh 
churchy  which  was  inftituted  upon  the  covenant  of  circum- 
■cijion,  is  one  and  the  fame  thing  with  the  gofpel  church,  whofe 
members  are,  as  the  prophet  declared  they  Ihould  be,  all 
righteous.     This  no  perfon  ought  to  believe. 

Had  he  undertaken  to  prove,  that  the  church  of  Rome, 
and  that  the  Proteftant  church,  generally,  are  formed  after 
the  model  of  the  old  Jewilh  church,  we  ibould  have  be- 
lieved the  fa<ft,  w^hether  his  arguments  were  to  the  point  or 
not ;  for  the  fa6l  is  intuitively  evident.  But  he  muft  not 
only  pervert,  add  to,  and  diminifh  from,  but  he  muft  change 
the  fcripture,  before  he  can  prove  that  the  Jewifh  church 
-and  the  gofpel  church  are  one  and  the  fame. 

Mr.  \Vorcefter's  arguments,  and  the  manner  in  which  he 
.handles  the  word  of  God,  have  repeatedly  brought  to  raj 
•mind  the  words  of  Jeremiah,  ch.  v.  31.  "  The  prophets 
prophefy  falfely,  and  tlie  priejls  bear  rule  by  their  means  ;  and 
tn^  people  love  to  have  it  fn.'* 


36  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier's 

In  my  next,  we  fhall  lee  Mr.  Worcefter  altering  and 
changing  fcripture,  to  bring  it  to  lib  purpoi'e ;  together 
with  ibme  of  his  continued  inconfiilency.  In  the  mean, 
time,  I  wifh  to  be 

The  public's,  in  the  fervice  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  &c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jiubborn  fa^ls,  and  to 
common  fenje. 


LETTER      V. 

«ENj   BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

In  my  laft  you  were  ptomifed,  that  in  this 
you  fliould  fee  fome  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  altering  and  chang- 
ing the  fcriptures,  to  bring  them  to  his  purpofe. — We  have 
already  feen  how  he  confounds,  mingles,  and  mtfapplies 
covenants  ;  we  v/ill  now  fee  how  he  alters  the  token  of  the 
covenant  of  promife,  and  how  he  changes  prcmife  into  pro- 
pofal.  In  ihort,  we  may  fee  how  he  turns  every  way,  ta 
carry  his  error  in  oppofition  to  the  gofpel,  and  to  perfuade 
his  readers  to  believe  his  Judaizing  fcheme. 

The  inftances  which  I  am  about  to  lay  before  you,  may 
ferve  as  famples  of  his  altering  and  wrefting  the  fcriptures, 
to  give  his  errors  a  popular  appearance,  iu  the  judgment 
of  thofe  who  drink  down  error  as  water. 

Page  32,  fpeaking  of  circumcifion,  the  token  of  the  cov- 
enant fct  promife,  and  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  Abra- 
ham's faith,  which  he  had  while  in  uncircumcifion,  Mr. 
Worcefter  in  the  Jirjl  place  calls  it  the  token,  and  then  im- 
mediately adds,  or  feal  of  the  covenant.  Token,  or  feal. 
This  changes  the  matter  fo  little  as  to  be  hardly  perceived. 
In  the  next  page  he  tells  us,  that  circumcifion  was  the  token 
and  feal  of  the  covenant.  Here  he  makes  fome  advance. 
Yet  the  diflference  between,  a  token  or  feal,  and  a  token  and 
feal,  is  fo  fmall,  that  he  might  fuppofe  his  readers,  generally, 
would  not  perceive  it. 

After  having  changed  the  word  of  God!,  Irom  token  of 
the  covenant,  to  token  or  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  token 
and  feal,  then  he  drops  the  fcripture  expreflioa  aad  takes 


Two  Difcourfes,  'iffc.  37 

ihe  papiftical  fuhftitute,  and  calls  circumcifion  the  outward 
Jeal  of  the  covenant,  the  appointed feal  of  the  covenant ;  and 
by  thirty  times  repeating,  in  different  places,  the  feal,  the 
outiuard  ieal,  the  appointed  feal,  of  the  covenant,  he  no  doubt 
fuppofed  that  his  hearers  and  readers  would  take  it  for 
granted  that  he  was  proceedmg  upon  fcripture  ground  ; 
whereas  this  is  all  a  mere  impofiiion  upon  the  credulity 
and  prepoileffion  of  the  public.  The  word  of  God,  in  n© 
place,  from  Gencfis  to  Revelation,  fays  fo  much  as  one 
word  about  circumcifion,  as  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant. 

The  next  thing  which  we  may  notice,  is  his  changing 
promife  into  prcpofal. 

Says  he,  pages  34,  35,  '  God^s  promife,  then,  or  propofaly 
to  Abraham,  was  to  be  a  God,  not  only  to  him,  but  alfo 
to  his  k^ii  after  him.  The  fame  was  his  promife,  or  pro- 
pful,  to  Ifaac. — God  promifed,  or  propofed,  to  Abraham,  to 
be  not  only  his  God,  but  alfo  the  God  of  his  feed  ;  fo  he 
now  promifes,  or  prvpofs,  to  every  believing  parent,  to  be 
not  only  a  God  to  him,  but  alfo  to  his  feed  after  him :  and 
the  {-.im^  promife,  or  prcpofal,  &c.'  Five  times  in  thefe  two 
pages,  he  lc-zi<eri  down  the  promife  of  God  to  the  level  of  a 
propofal. 

We  will  now  recur  to  fome  more  of  his  inconfiflencies, 
or  attend  a  httle  farther  to  his  continued  inconfiftency, 
which  runs  through  and  is  the  funi  of  his  fhowey  evidence, 
and  is  at  the  foundation  of  his  falfe  reafonings,  from  begin- 
ning to  end  of  his  fubject. 

His  other  general  head  is  now  to  be  confidered,  which  is, 

*  II.  To  confider  more  particularly  what  provifiou  was 
made  in  the  Ahrahamic  covetjant,  for  the  continuance  of  the 
church  formed  by  it,  and  the  tranfmiffion  of  the  bleffings 
contained  in  it.' 

Here  Mr,  Worcefler  muft  intend,  by  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  either — firft,  the  covenant  which  was  confirmed 
of  God  in  Chrift  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the 
law  ;  or,  fecondly,  the  covenant  of  circumcifion.  If  he 
intend  the  firft,  we  have  only  to  obferve,  what  we  have 
fliov/n  befoie,  that  this  covenant  never  gave  vifibility  to 
the  Jewifli  church,  for  it  was  manifjlcd  and  conjirmed,  and 
yet  there  was  no  vifible  church  for  yeurs  after :  and  be- 
fides,  this  covenant  continues  forever,  though  the  Jewifh 
church  is  no  more.  If  he  intend  the  fecond,  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion,  we  have  juft:  to  obferve,  that  it  hath  fo 
pafled  away,  that,  fo  far  as  ive  keep  it,  and  hope  for  falva- 
tion  by  It,  either  for  ourfclves  or  for  our  children,  Chrift  Ihall 


3^  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJier''s 

•profit  us  nothing,  Gal.  v.  2.  Nor  are  we  once  told,  in  the 
fcriptures  of  iruth,  that  any  covenant  is  fubftituted  in  its 
room. 

But  he  intends  the  firft,  and  nothing  is  lefs  to  his  pur- 
pofe  :  for  he  quotes,  page  33,  as  proof  of  his  propofuion, 
•what  Peter  faid  to  the  Jews,  Aifts  iii.  25,  26.  "  Ye  are  the 
children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  our  fathers,  faying  unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy 
feed  JIhiU  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  hlejfed.  Unto  you 
firit,  God,  having  raifed  up  his  Son  Jefus,  fent  hiKi  to  blefs 
you,  in  turning  away  every  one  of  you  from  his  iniquities." 
This  quotation  fully  Ihows  what  covenant  he  intends  ;  but  • 
what  hath  this  to  do  with  the  formation  of  a  vifible  church, 
in  Abraham's  family  ?  Mr.  Worcefter  might  with  equal 
propriety  have  quoted  the  firll  chapter  of  Genefis,  or  the 
lafl;  of  Revelation,  aiid  then  hence  told  us,  that  the  church 
in  Abraham's  family  was  founded  by  the  one,  or  by  the 
other,  or  by  both  ;  and  have  concluded,  that  the  Jewifh 
and  Chriftian  churches  are  one  and  the  fame. 

Mr.  Worcefter,  uader  his  fecond  general  head,  has  no 
formal  argument,  to  prove  that  provifion  was  made  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  for  the  continuance  of  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  the  tranfmiffion  of  the  bleffings  con- 
tained in  it. 

If  I  apprehend  his  idea  with  clearnefs,  the  fum  of  the 
provifion  which  was  made  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  for 
the  continuance  of  the  church  formed  by  it,  and  the  tranf- 
miffion of  the  bleffings  contained  in  it,  is,  according  to  his 
notion  of  the  matter,  contained  in  his  thirty-feventh  and 
thirty-eighth  pages,  and  in  the  following  words  :  *  For  they 
which  are  the  children  of  the  flefh  (merely)  are  not  the 
children  of  God  ;  but  the  children  of  the  promife,  the  children 
in  refped  to  ivhom  there  is  that  fc'ilh  and  fidelity  which  are 
the  conditions  of  the  p--omife,  are  counted  for  the  feed.  From 
this  pafTage  (fays  he)  it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  plain,  that  the 
promife  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  feed  after  him, 
had  refpeft- primarily  to  his  natural  defcendants  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  plain,  that  merely  their  being 
the  natural  defcendants  of  Abraham,  did  not  bring  them 
within  the  promife.  To  be  children  of  the  promife,  they  muft 
be  children  of  faith  ;  children,  of  nvhom  there  is  en  the  part  of 
the  parent  or  parentSy  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant 
of  God.' 

From  thefe  promifes,  and  the  fame  frequently  mentioned 
in  Mr.  Worcciter's  pages,  he  would  have  us  conclude,  with 
him,  that  the  following  inferences  aie  true  ; — Firft,  That 


Two  Difcomfes^  Is'c.  39. 

everlafting  falvation  is  promifed  to  children,  on  account  of 
the  faith  of  parent  or  parents.  Secondly,  That  the  children 
Ihouid  be  baptized  en  the  faith  of  their  parents.  Thirdly, 
That  all  this  is  onrrobcrative  evidence,  that  the  Jewifh  and 
gofpei  churches  are  one  and  the  fame. 

I  have  feverai  objedions  againft  thefe  premifes,  and  alfo 
againft  the  concluiions  which  Mr.  Worcefter  would  drav/ 
from  them. 

1.  There  is  no  fuch  promife  made,  that  the  children 
fhall  be  faved  by  or  on  account  of  the  faith  of  their  parents  : 
befides,  God,  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  (ch.  xviii)  mani- 
feftly  fpeaks  againft  the  exiftence  of  any  fuch  promife. 

2.  On  fuppofition  that  fuch  exifted  in  Abraham's  day, 
and  exifts  ftill,  yet  no  perfon  ever  kept  the  covenant  which 
comprifes  fuch  a  promife  ;  at  leaft,  we  have  no  account  of 
any  fuch  perfon.  Even  Abraham  appears  to  have  kept 
not  more  than  one-eighth  of  fuch  a  covenant :  for  he  had, 
at  leaft,  eight  fons,  and  but  cne  of  them  was  a  child  of 
promife, 

3.  Suppofe  fuch  a  covenant  exifts,  and  alfo  fuppofe  all 
godly  parents  obey  this  covenant,  it  does  not  hence  follow 
that  their  children  fhould  be  baptized,  before  they  are 
manifeftly  made  partakers  of  the  promife. 

For  the  fake  of  fhowing,  and  ftill  farther  expofmg,  the 
abfurdity  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory,  I  will  ftate  a  principle, 
and  then  reafon  from  it  upon  his  principles. 

All  true  Chrifllans  have  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant 
of  God. 

From  this  principle  I  reafon  thus  : — All  children  of  parents 
who  have  the  faith  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of  God,  will 
be  finally  faved.  All  true  Chriflians  have  this  faith  :  there- 
fore, the  children  of  all  true  Chrlfiians  will  he  faved.  Again, 
all  who  Jhall  be  faved,  are  true  Chriflians  ;  therefore,  the 
children'' s  children  of  all  true  Chriftians,  and  thj^t  too,  to  the 
latefl  generation,  {hall  he  faved.  Again,  Abraham  had  faith 
in  the  covenant  of  God,  and  it  was  as  operative  in  the 
father  of  the  faithful  as  in  any  of  his  fons ;  therefore,  all 
the  Ifhmaelites,  and  all  the  Ifraelites,  and  all  the  infidel 
and  gainfaying  Jews,  and  all  the  defcendants  of  the  fons  of 
Keturah,  are  all  faved,  or  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory  is  abfurd 
or  falfe. 

Mr.  Worcefter  may  reply,  «  T^o  be  the  natural  children  of 
Abraham,  does  not  bring  them  within  the  promife.'  Very 
well.  Then  the  matter  ftands  thus — To  be  the  children 
of  Abraham  did  not,  in  his  day,  bring  them  within  the 
promife  5  but  to  be  the  children  of  on«  believing  parenty  noiu 


40  Letters  on  Rev.  5.  V/orceJier'' s 

does.  Hence,  one  of  thefe  two  things  is  true  ;  either,  nrft, 
that  the  promife  is  now  different  from  what  it  was  in 
Abraham's  time  ;  or,  fecondly,  Mr.  Worcefter's  theory  is 
•  falfe.  But  if  the  promife  be  different  now  from  what  it 
was  in  Abraham's  time,  then  his  theory  is  falfe ;  for  he 
goes,  profe/fedly,  upon  the  fuppofition,  that  it  is  the  fame  : 
and  if  the  promife  be  the  fime  now  that  it  was  in  the  time 
of  Abraham,  Mr.  Worcefler's  theory  is  (till  falfe  ;  for  the 
promife  then  was  not  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  according 
to  the  flelh,  but  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  Rom. 
ix.  6 — 13.  I'o  make  the  befl  of  his  theory,  and  of  the 
theory  of  his  brethren,  a  perfon  who  has  eight  fons,  as  had 
Abraham,  muft  have  eight  times  as  much  faith  as  Abraham 
had,  or  they  will  not  be  the  childrtn  oi  promife  ;  for  but  one 
of  his  was  fo.  '1  hus  abfurd  and  contradictory  from  fcrip- 
ture,  fafts,  and  common  fenfe,  is  Mr,  Worcefter's  theory. 
We  have  now  paifed  over  and  examined  his  firft  Sermon, 
which  contains  his  fubje<5t ;  and  the  following  oblervations 
appear  to  arife  as  natural  deduiftions. 

1.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  wholly  mifunderftood  his  text, 
as  mentioned  at  the  clofe  of  Letter  II. 

2.  That  his  doflrine  is  not  contained  in  his  text,  nor 
fupported  by  any  of  his  arguments. 

3.  That  his  whole  feries  of  arguments  is  one  continued 
Jophifm,  of  the  firft  m.agnltude.  From  argument  to  argu- 
ment, he  proved  what  nobody  denies,  and  then  afTumed  as 
proved  what  none  but  Judaizing  Chriftians  do  or  ever  did 
believe. 

4.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  muft  produce  better  arguments, 
or  the  eyes  of  the  underftanding  part  of  his  own  denomina- 
tion will  probably  difcover  the  weaknefs  of  their  caufe. 
If  he  have  brought  as  good  arguments  as  there  are,  to 
prove  that  the  gofpel  church  is  but  a  continuation  cf  the 
old  corrupt  Jewifti  church,  his  caufe  is  truly  defperate,  and 
the  fooner  forfaken  the  better. 

5.  That  he  muft  have  taken  the  wrong  fide  of  the  fub- 
jeft,  er  a  perfon  of  his  good  fenfe  would  not  have  laboured 
fo  hard,  and  have  proved  nothing. 

What  we  have  yet  before  us,  is  Mr.  Worcefter's  appJka- 
tion,  which  is  the  moft  offenfive  part  of  his  performance. 
But  I  hope  to  treat  him  with  Chriltian  mildnefs,  whilft  I 
(hall  be  under  the  difagrecable  neceflity  of  rebuking  him 
fliarply,  that  he  and  others  may  tear,  for  the  future,  to 
come  forward  with  temerity,  againft  the  facred  caufe  of 
truth.  _ 

In  the  mean  time,  I  am,  &c. 


^Iwo  JJtjcourJes^  KS^c,  4« 

We  appeal  to  the  Bible ^  to  Jiuhhorn  fa^s^  and  iC 
common  fenfe, 

LETTER      VI. 

MEN,   BRETHREN,   AND   FATHERS, 

VV  E  now  come  to  what  Mr.  Worcefter  calls 
Improvement  ;.  in  which  he  does  as  all,  both  good  and  bad, 
have  done,  lb  far  as  the  traditions  and  prejudices  of  mor- 
tals take  the  lead,  wax  w^orfe  and  worfe.  Indeed,  it  is 
perfedly  natural  to  exped,  that  if  a  maia  fets  out  but  a 
few  degrees  in  a  wrong  direftion,  he  will,  as  he  travels  on, 
deviate  and  wander  farther  from  the  right  way.  Mr. 
Worcefter's  having  taken  fuch  a  fet  off,  is  the  occafion  of 
his  inconfiftencies  and  abfurdities,  in  which  we  have  feen 
him.  The  inconfiftencies,  falfe  ftatements,  and  mifrepre- 
fentations,  in  which  we  miift  yet  view  him,  I  charitably 
hope,  originate  from  his  erroneous  fet  off,  rather  than  from 
any  \\ickeJ  defign,  and  fet  purpofe  to  deceive  and  impofe 
on  the  public,  and  on  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jefus. 

In  his  improvement,  his  ftrjl  article  is,  '  We  are  led 
(fays  he)  to  a  grateful  and  devout  contemplation  of  the 
great  defign,  the  gradual  progrefs,  and  the  ultimate  exten- 
fion  and  glory  of  the  church  of  God,  originally  eftablifhed 
in  the  family  of  Abraham.' 

This  articlt^  might  be  fo  explained  as  to  have  a  g-eod 
meaning  ;  but  as  Mr.  Worcefter  explains  it,  it  has  the  lame 
erroneous  fignification  as  has  the  preceding  Sermon.  His 
objedl  ftill  is,  to  prove  that  there  is  no  neiv  man,  or  Icdy  of 
men,  in  the  go/pel  church,  from  what  compofed  the  Jewifii 
church  ;  and  that  the  former,  as  well  as  the  latter,  is,  of 
right,  compofed  of  believers  and  unbelievers,  in  dire<fl  con- 
tradidion  to  the  prophets,  to  Jefus  Chrift,  and  to  his  apof^ 
ties  ;  who  fay,  that  the  gofpel  church  fhould  be,  and  is, 
made  up  of  righteous  ones,  oifuch  as  are  iatight  of  God,  and  is 
an  holy  nation.  Sec. 

In  this  way  alfo  he  excludes  the  myftery,  which  Paul 
fpeaks  of,  as  having  been  hid  in  God  from  the  foundation 
ef  the  world,  and  which  was  not  made  known  unto  the  fons 
of  men,  as   it  is  now   revealed  unto  his  holy  apoftles  and 

D 


4.1  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcefier's 

prophets  by  the  Spirit,  that  the  Gentiles  Ihould  be  fellow 
heirs,  and  of  the  fame  (new  man  or)  body  (with  the  be- 
lieving Jews}  and  partakers  of  his  promife  in  Chr'ijl  by  the 
gofpel.  According  to  Mr.  Worcefter,  there  appears  to 
have  been  no  nr/Ilery  about  the  matter:  nothing  new  took 
place,  V  ith  relation  to  the  church,  when  the  God  of  heaven 
fat  up  his  kingdom  in  the -world,  and  called  his  people  by 
another  name  ;  at  Itafi,  nothing  new  with  refpeft  to  the  ma- 
terials of  which  the  church  was  compofed. 

If  fome  few  Gentiles  were  added  to  it  at  the  firft,  and 
more  afterwards,  this  was  nothing  new.  If  in  procefs  of 
time  more  Gentiles  than  ever  before,  wore  added,  ftill  this 
was  nothing  new  or  myfteriotis,  any  farther  than  it  is 
myilerious  to  have  an  old  pradice  fomev/hat  more  largely 
extended  :  for  it  bad  beex\  culiomary  in  many,  if  not  in  all, 
generations  of  the  Jewifh  church,  to  receive  Gentiles  into  it. 

His  Jccond  article,  having  no  particular  connexion  with 
the  point  in  debate,  may  be  on^itted :  however,  a  note, 
pages  50,  51,  at  tlie  conclufjon  of  his  remarks  on  this  arti- 
cle, may  be  noticed. 

♦  Though  the  covenant  (fays  he)  is  never,  on  God's  part, 
eftabliihed  with  any  but  true  believers,  yet  all  who  have  taken 
the  vows  upon  them,  ought  to  feel  themfelvcs  facredly  bound 
to  fulfil  their  engagements.  If  they  have  opened  their  mouths 
unto  the  Lord,  they  cannot  go  hack.^ 

All  who  have  taken  the  voivs  of  God  upon  themfelves, 
ought,  no  doubt,  to  feel  themfelves  facredly  bound  to  fulfil 
their  engagement.  But  wliat  have  the  wicked  and  unbe- 
lieving to  do,  to  take  God's  covenant  into  their  mouths  : 
yet,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  '  If  they  have  opened  their  mouths 
unto  the  Lord,  they  cannot  go  baihJ' 

By  greatly  mifapplying  and  wrefting  this  general  truth. 
That  fuch  as  have  opened  their  mouths  unto  the  Lord, 
cannot  go  back,  fcveral  minifters  in  the  vicinity  of  Sedg- 
wick have  been  binding  the  confciences  oi  their  hearers,  to 
continue  pradfitig  the  traditions  of  men,  becaufe  they  have,  in 
time  paft,  ignorantly  covenanted  to  obferve  them.  Some 
of  thefe  minifters  are  greatly  abuhng  the  forward  belief 
and  ignornnce  of  many  of  their  hearers.  Thefe  minifters 
are  unable  to  ftiow  their  people,  that  the  covenant  into  which 
they  have  entered,  is  in  agreement  with  the  command  and 
pattern  given  ;  yet  they  teach,  that  to  break  this  covenant, 
though  it  be  found  neither  in  the  Old  Tejlament  nor  in  th« 
Ne%',  is  next  to  facrilege  and  perjury,  'ihus  they  bind 
their  poor  people  with  an  heavy   burden,  of  which  God 


Two  Difconrfes,  "^c.  43, 

will,  I  truft,  ere  long  eafe  them.  Thofe  who  bound 
themlelves  under  an  oath  to  kill  Paul,  might  •with  as  much 
prcjriety,  have  been  holden  to  perfeverance. — It  may  be 
the  above  minifters  are  not  the  only  ones,  uho  ufe  the  above 
method,  to  retain  their  people  in  the  fuackhs  of  papijiical 
Jupfrjlitlon. 

His  third  article  is,  page  51,  •  It  appears,  that  a  cordial 
and  obedient  belief  in  all  -which  God  has  propoffd  in  his 
gracious  covenant,  is  of  high  and  everlafting  importance.' 

Truly,  whatever  God  hath  propofed,  or  promifed,  in  his 
gracious  covenant,  is  of  very  high  concernment  to  all  to 
■  whom  this  matter  appertains,  and  it  fhould  command  their 
cordiaFand  obedient  belief.  But  how  doth  this  Ihow,  that- 
Chriftians  have  any  particular  and  high  connexion  with  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  by  which  the  vifible  church  in- 
Abraham's  family  was  inftituted  ?  Or,  what  hath  this  to 
do  with  the  onene/s  and  famenefs  of  the  gcfpel  and  Jewifti 
churches  ?  Or,  what  hath  this  to  do  w^th  the  fprinkling  of 
infants  ?  or  with  infant  church  memberlhip  ?  or  with  the 
certain  falvation  of  Ilhmael  and  Efau,  or  of  the  fons  of 
Keturah  ? 

If  we  will  hear  Mr.  Worcefler,  he  will  fhow  us  his  opin- 
ion, page  52,  '  It  is  not,  (fays  he)  indeed,  fuppofed  to  be 
certain,  that  if  you  be  unbelieving  and  difoledient,  your  children 
will  be  finally  loft  ;  for  God  may,  as  often  in  his  fovereigr\ 
mercy  he  does,  go  out  of  the  limits  of  the  church,  and 
beftow  his  grace  on  thofe  who  are  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Ifrael,  and  ftrangers  from  the  covenant  of  prom- 
ife ;  but  if,  in  this  cafe,  he  does  beftov/  grace  upon  your 
children,  it  will  not«be  in  purfuance  of -any  covenant  en- 
gagement to  you.' 

Upon  thefe'  obfervations  we  may  make  the  following 
remarks : — 

r.  Mr.  Wcrcefter  places  unbelieving  children  within  the 
limits  of  the  gofpel  church. 

2.  He  gives  us  to  uniierftand,  that  it  is  probable,  that 
the  children  of  an  unbelieving  parent  will  be  finally  loft  ; 
yet,  he  fays,  It  is  not  luppofed  to  be  certain  that  they 
will  be. 

3,  He  informs  us,  that  God  ufually  converts  church  mem- 
bers, or  thofe  within  the  limits  of  the  church  ;  yet,  he  fays, 
'  God  may,  as  often  in  his  fovereign  mercy  he  dees,  go 
out  of  the  limits  of  the  church,  and  beftow  his  grace  *  oa 
others. 


44  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Wcrce/}er*s 

Mr.  Worcefter  hath  a  very  different  idea  of  gofpel  church 
iiiembers,  from  what  the  prophets,  Chrift  Jefus,  or  tlie 
apoftles  had  :  they  confidered  and  fpake  of  them  as  being 
all  holy.  God  never  converts,  or  beftows  regenerating 
grace,  upon  any  within  the  /imUs  of  the  gofpel  church,  fave 
it  be  when  he  converts  an  hypocrite,  who  hath  joined  the 
church,  by  profefling  to  be  holy  when  he  was  not. 

4.  Mr.  Worcefter  inftrudts  us  to  believe,  that  God  be- 
ftows  regenerating  grace  upon  children,  in  purfuance  of 
fome  covenant  engagement  to  their  parents.  How  differ- 
ent this  from  the  Bible  !  Or,  at  leaft,  what  hath  the  Bible 
to  do  with  I'uch  an  idea  ?  Where  or  when  did  God  ever 
enter  into  covenant  with  Abraham,  Ifaac,  or  Jacob,  or 
with  any  other  perfon,  to  bellow  faving  grace  upon  their 
children,  in  confequence  of  any  duty  perfoi-med  by  parents  ? 
If  fuch  a  covenant  exifts,  or  ever  did  exift,  where  is  it  re- 
corded ?  If  it  can  be  found,  which  of  the  children  doth  it 
include  ?  the  firft  born  ?  or  the  laft  ?  or  doth  it  include  all  ? 

Have  we  any  information  that  fuch  a  covenant  was  ever 
olferved  by  man,  or  fulfiiled  by  the  Lord?  If  (o^  where  ?  in 
what  verfe,  chapter,  or  book,  of  either  the  Old  Teftament 
or  the  New  ?  The  fact  is,  the  whole  matter  appears  to  be  a 
mere  Jewilh  or  papiflical  error  and  fuperfiition,  into  wliich 
Mr.  Worcefter  and  his  brethren  appear  to  have  been  led, 
as  a  thing  neceffary  to  be  believed,  to  give  more  plaufible 
fupport  to  the  traditionary  notion  of  infant  baptifm. 

It  is  true,  the  Lord  promifed  Abraham  to  be  a  God  to 
him  and  his  feed  after  him.  It  is  alfo  -true,  that  the  Lord 
faid,  "  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  houfehold  after  him,  and  they  Jhali  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  juftice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may  bring 
upon  Abraham  that  •which  he  hath  Jpohen  of  him."  But  here"^ 
is  no  promife,  that  upon  Abraham's  being  obedient  and 
faithful,  his  children  after  the  fiejh  fnould  be  fpiritual,  or 
regenerate  ;  nor  have  we  information  that  any  of  them 
were  fo,  fave  Ifaac,  who  was  the  child  of  promife. 

The  whole  which  Mr.  W"orcefler  and  others  have  faid  of 
this  matter,  appears  to  be  a  mere  prejudice,  invented  prob- 
ably in  the  firft  place  to  give  currency  to  the  traditionary 
rite  of  infant  baptilm,  and  inf  int  fprinkling  ;  and  it  is  man- 
ifeftly  ftill  continued,  to  fupport  the  fame  error. 

But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  '■fourthly,  from  our  fubjeft  we 
may  infer,  that  for  believing  parents  to  give  their  children 
to  God  in  baptifm,  is  a  great  and  important  duty.' 


Tvjo  Di/courfes,  <sfc.  45 

From  -what  part  of  his  fubjeft  does  he  infer  this  ?  He 
hath  no  where  fhown  us,  that  God  hath,  in  any  part  of  his 
v'ord,  enjoined  this,  by  ftatute,  law,  or  precept,  as  a  duty, 
upon  any  of  his  friends.  But  we  will  hear  what  he  hath 
to  fay,  in  fupport  of  this  inference  ;  for  we  are  willing  he 
fhould  demonftrate  it,  if  he  can. 

♦  When  God  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  eftablifhed  his  cove- 
nant with  Abraham,  he  gave  him  the  fign  of  circumcifion, 
a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  ;  and  in  the  felf-famfe 
day  was  Abraham  circumcifed  and  Ifhmael  his  fon,  and 
all  the  men  of  his  houfe,  born  in  the  houfe,  and  bought 
with  Tnoney  of  the  ftvanger,  were  circumciled  with  him.' 
Page  53,  he  fays,  'Circumcifion  has  been  difcontinued,  and 
baptifm  appointed  in  its  place.  But  no  order,  no  intima- 
tion, has  been  given,  that  the  feal  in  its  prefent  form  is  not, 
as  it  was  exprefsly  required  in  its  ancient  form,  to  be  applied 
to  the  children  of  the  church.^ 

A  few  natural  confequences  from  what  he  here  aflerts,  • 
will  fufEciently  fhow  its  abfurdity. 

1.  A  Carolina  planter  to-day  purchafes  a  fhip-load  of 
Airicans,  who  are  worfhippers  of  devils  ;  to-morrow,  their 
mafter  is  converted.  Now  he  and  his  heathen  flaves  muft 
be  all  baptized ;  for,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  Baptifm  hath 
been  appointed  in  the  place  of  circumcifion,  and  all  the 
males  bought  with  money  were  to  be  circumcifed, 

2.  All  thefe  heathen  flaves  belong  to  the  Chriflian 
church  ;  for  thus  it  was  in  the  church  formed  in  Abra=> 
ham's  family,  if  any  vifible  church  fubfifted  there. 

3.  The  children  of  all  thefe  worfhippers  of  devils,  muft 
be  baptized  :  for,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  no  arder,  no  iniima" 
tion,  has  been  given,  that  the  feal  in  its  prefent  form  is  notj 
as  it  was  exprefsly  required  in  its  ancient  form,  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  children  oixha  church.^ 

4.  Mr.  Worcefter  has  now,  according  to  his  antichriA 
tian  fcheme,  hundreds  of  hea.thens  fea/ed,  fea/ed  in  the  churchy 
fealed  m  the  covenant  oi  grace  :    for  'circumcifion   (he  tells 

us)  is  the  outward,  the  appointed,  feal  of  the  covenant,  and- 
baptifm  is  appointed  in  its  place.' 

How  much  like  the  man  of  fin  does  Mr.  Worcefter 
appear,  whilft  he  is  urging  upon  the  Chriftian  world,  or 
church,  principles  inevitably  connedired  with  fuch  c0?-;fcr-" 
quences  !  When  the  leaders >of  God's  people  will  not  abide 
by  his  word,  but  take  liberty  to  alter,  change,  and  mangle 
it  at  their  pleafure,  they  make  ftrange  work,  and  plunge  " 
therofelves  and  their  followers  into  many  hurtful  errors,  • 

R  2 


46  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  lVorceJler*s 

One  great  occafion  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  abfurdlties,  into 
which  he  hath  run,  and  falfe  ftatements  which  we  have 
already  feen,  and  of  more  which  we  fhdll  foon  fee,  is  his 
unufual  boldnels  in  wrefting  the  Icriptures,  and  afTerting 
things  which  he  knew  not.  Perhaps  no  one  thing  hath 
had  greater  influence  in  darkening  his  mind,  and  bhnding 
him  from  the  truth,  than  his  remarkable  miftake,  in  iiflerl- 
ing,  more  than  thirty  times,  that  circumcijwn  and  laptijm  are 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  When  any  perfon  ac- 
quires a  habit  of  faying  what  is  not  true,  it  is  not  ftrange, 
fliould  he  believe  himfelf  when  no  other  perfon  fhould. 
This  is,  no  doubt,  the  cafe  with  Mr.  Worcefter.  Speaking 
of  circumcilion  and  baptifm,  he  tells  us,  page  53,  'The 
feal  has,  indeed,  been  altered.' 

Reply.  It  is  not  fully  believed  by  the  writer,  that  Mr. 
Worceller  intentionally  fpake  fah'ely  ;  at  the  fame  time, 
thaie  is  not  a  word  of  iruih  in  what  he  fays,  about  circum- 
cifion  and  baptifm  being  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  of  the 
Jeal  of  the  covenant  heing  altered.  1  here  is  not  a  Angle  word 
of  this  in  the  fcriptures  of  truth.  Would  the  public  be 
perfuaded  to  fearch  the  fcriptures,  as  the  more  noble  Bere- 
ans  did,  they  would  find  that  infant  fprinkling  is  all  a  mere 
delufion  or  invention  of  men,  like  this  feal  of  the  covenant, 
with  which  Mr.  Worcefter  makes  fuch  a  ihow  of  argument. 

In  pages  53,  54,  he  fays,  •  Circumcifion  was  formerly 
the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  admiflion  into  the  church  of 
Cod  ;  baptifm  is  now  the  appointed  pre-requihte  of  admif- 
fion  into  the  fame  church.  In  a  word,  (fays  he)  baptifm 
is  of  the  fame  import,  and  of  the  fame  ufe  in  the  church, 
under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  as  w^as  circumcifion  under 
the  ancient.' 

Here  is  trutli  and  error  mixed  together,  as  they  are  in 
all  his  pages.  It  is  true,  that  circumcifion  was  formerly 
nnd  always  the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  admiffion  into  the 
Jewiili  church,  or  it  was  the  initiating  ordinance.  It  is 
alfo  true,  that  baptifm  is  now,  and  ever  was,  from  the  'ie- 
ginning  of  the  gofpel  church,  the  appointed  pre-requifite  of 
admiffion  into  it,  or  it  is  ever  the  vifible  admiiTion  itfelf, 
notwithftanding  the  great  miftakes  of  Mr.  Auft;in  and 
others,  as  to  this  matter.  But  it  is  not  true,  that  circum- 
cifion and  baptifm  are,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  fays  they  are, 
pre-requifites  of  admiffion  into  the  fame  church ;  for  in 
Ads  iii.  we  are  informed,  that  the  very  perfons  who  were 
circumcifed  and  admitted  to  the  Jewifii  church,  were  after- 
wards baptized  and  added  to  the  gofpel  church.     It  would 


Two  D'lfcGurfes,  Iffc.  47 

be  an  abfurdlty  to  fay,  that  a  perfon  was  added  to  a  fociety, 
01  which  he  was  at  the  time,  and  had  long  been,  a  conllant 
irember  ;  but,  as«abfurd  as  it  is,  this  is  Mr.  Worceiler's 
notion  of-' the  buiinefs.  His  theory  is,  that  the  converted 
.J(;ws  were,  by  baptifm,  added  to  the  church,  of  which  they 
had  been  member'  from  their  infancy. 

Befides,  it  is  not  true,  as  lie  afl'erts,  '  that  baptifm  is  of 
•the  fame  import  in  the  civurch  under  the  prefent  difpenfa- 
tion,  as  was  circumcihon  under  the  ancient.'  For  circum- 
cifion,  when  adminiilcred,  according  to  the  command,  at 
eight  days  old,  only  imported,  that  the  fubjetft  was  a  child 
of  Abyaham,  after  the  flefh,  or  a  child  of  a  converted  or 
profelyted  heathen  ;  where.is  baptifm,  when  adminilfered 
according  to  the  command  and  pattern  given,  importSy  that 
the  lubjecls  of  it  aire  the  children  of  God  by,  faith  in  Chrift. 
Jefus.  Thus  we  fee,  that  his  theory  leads  him  farther  and 
faither  into  error  and  niiftake. 

Again,  fays  Mr.  Worcelter,  '  The  whole  analogy  of 
fcripture  gots  to  fupport  this  fentimient,  that  baptifm  has, 
in  facl,  taken  the  place  of  circumcifion  ;'  and  then,  to  ef- 
tablilh  his  fentiment.  deduces  a  pafiage  of  fcripture  which 
fays  nothing  to  the  point,  but  only  mentions  the  circum- 
cifion  of  Chrill,  which  was  made  without  hands.  If  this 
eleventh  verfe  of  the  fecond  chapter  of  Coloffians,  have  any 
reference  to  ivater  baptifm,  it  is  all  gathered  from  the  twelfth 
verfe,  which  fpeaks  of  being  buried  and  raifed  again  in  bap- 
tifm. Should  we  allow  Mr.  Worcefter  to  be  correft,  in  his 
application  of  the  eleventh  verfe,  to  prove  that  baptifm 
hath  taken  the  place  of  circumcihon,  then  it  would  prove 
the  ruin  of  two  of  his  ill-fupported  opinions,  with  which  he 
hath,  of  late  years,  been  amu fmg  the  public.  One  is,  his 
traditionary  notion  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm  ;  for  the  text 
has  no  intimation  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  but  of  being 
buried  and  raifed  again.  The  other  is,  his  opinion,  that  this 
text  in  Coloffians,  and  the  parallel  one  in  the  fixth  chapter 
of  Romans,  intend  fpiritual  baptifm  ;  which  they  cannot, 
provided  the  natural  import  of  the  text  is,  that  Chriftian 
baptifm  hath  taken  tlie  place  of  Jewilh  circumcifion.  In 
this  way  Mr.  Worcefter  might  make  progrefs  in  deftroying 
his  errors ;  ruin  two  old  ones  by  the  introdudion  of  a  new 
one.  So  inconfiftent  is  error,  that  fuch  as  abide  in  it,  can- 
not make  ftraight  paths  for  their  feet. 

In  the  fame  page,  he  tells  us  about  an  exprefs  precept 
for  adminiftering  the  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the 
church,  and  that  the  f^me  i precept  QCxW  remains  in  force, 


4'S  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejler'' s 

unlefs  ex-prefsly  repealed.  His  words  are,  '  There  was, 
Tinder 't^ie  former  difpenfation,  an  cxprejs  precept  for  admiit- 
iftering  the  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the  church.  That 
precept,  varying  only  as  the  feal  is  varied,  ftill  remains  in 
force,  unlefs  it  have  been  exprefsly  repealed.'  Here  is  the 
appearance  of  fomething  new.  Under  the  former  difpen- 
fation, we  are  told,  there  was  an  exprefs  precept  for  admin~ 
yierir.g  the  covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the  church  ;  and 
unlefs  this  precept  have  been  exprefsly  repealed,  it  ftill 
remains  in  lorce.  Here,  if  Mr.  Worcefter  have  the  truth, 
•w^,  who  are  Chriftian  adminiftrators,  muft  adminifter  the 
covenant  to  the  infant  feed  of  the  Chriftian  church.  What 
covenant  ?  The  covenant  of  baptifm  ?  No,  for  there  is  no 
fuch  covenant  mentioned.  The  covenant  of"  circumcifion  ?' 
No  ;  for  if  we  be  circnmcifed  Chrift;  fhall  profit  us  nothing. 
What  covenant  then  ?  The  coven.mt  of  Sfrace,  or  the  new 
covenant  i"  No,  for  to  adminilter  that  is  God's  prerogative. 
But  we  may  be  more  inquiiltive  than  Mr.  Wercefter  will 
allow  ;  for  he  tells  us,  (after  he  had  taken  every  thing  for; 
granted,  which  it  v.'as  neceffary  for  him  to  prove)  that  it  is 
arrogance  lor  us  to  demand  any  explicit  precept,  in  the  New 
Teftament,  for  our  pradtice  in  relation  to  infants,  under  the 
new  difpenfation.  His  words  are,  *  It  is  arrogance,  there- 
fore, to  demand,  for  we  have  no  right  to  exped,  an  explicit 
renewal  of  this  precept  to  be  found  in  the  New  Teftament, 
any  more  than  of  the  precept  for  the  obfervance  of  the 
fabbath.*  This  is  a  Ihort  way  of  doing  bufmefs,  to  tell  us 
to  believe  without  evidence,  and  praftife  without  precept 
or  example  ;  and,  if  we  hefitate,  call  us  arrogant. 

Mr.  Worcefter's  note,  psges  ^^y  ^6,  muft  now  have  a 
moment's  attention,  that  the  public  may  fee  the  fallacy, 
deception,  or  imprudence  of  the  man,  when  he  manages 
his  opponents'  arguments.  If  he  will  confefs  his  ignorance 
of  the  Baptifts'  fentiments,  then  what  he  hath  afferted  may- 
be palfed  over ;  but  otherwife,.  his  management  is  highly 
cenfurable.  But  we  will  hear  a  compreffed  view  of  this 
note,  and  two  former  ones,  as  put  together  by  himfelf. 
His  words  are, 

*  The  very  palpable  inconfiftencies,  noticed  in  this  and 
two  former  notes,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  exhibit  to- 
gether in  one  point  of  view. 

'  I.  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  (etd^ 
was  only  a  temporal  covenant,  and  formed  only  a  temporal 
church  ;  yet  the  great  promife  of  the  covenant  had  refpe^, 
not  to  natural,  but  only  to  fpiritual  feed  ! 


'Two  Difcourfes.)  l^c,  49 

*  2.  Though  the  great  promife  of' the  covenant  had  re- 
fped,  not  to  natural,  but  only  to  fplritual  feed,  yet  the 
covenant  was  long  ago  abolilhed.  tiince  the  coining  of 
Meffiah,  God  is  no  longer,  by  covenant,  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham and  his  [fpiritual)  feed  ! 

*  3.  Though  the  great  promife  n?  the  covenant  had 
no  refpeft  to  natural  ieed,  yet  the  natural  feed  were  not 
only  admitted  to  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  but  even,  as 
members,  to  all  tlie  privileges  of  the  church  ! 

'  4.  Though  the  Abrahamic  church  was  a  type  of  the 
Chriilian  church,  and  in  that  church  children  were  admit- 
ted to  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  to  ail  the  privileges  of 
members  ;  yet  in  the  gofpi;l  church,  they  are  neither  to  be 
recognized  as  members,  nor  even  regarded  as  fit  fubjeds 
for  the  feal  of  the  covenant ! 

'  Such  (fays  he)  are  a  few  of  the  abfurdities  of  the  Anti- 
pasdobaptift  Icheme.' 

If  Mr.  Worcefter  knew  no  better,  he  Is  not  to  be  envied.; 
if  he  knew  better,  and  yet  hath  given  this  fophiftical  view 
of  his  opponents'  fentiments,  he  is  to  be  difefteemed. 

We  w'lU  now  fupply,  in  the  above  particulars,  what  Mr. 
Worcefter  ought  not  to  have  omitted.  Afterwards  the 
public  will  judge,  whetlier  abfurdities  attach  to  the  Bap- 
tifts,  or  darknefs  and  miireprefentation  to  Mr.  Worcefter. 
It  ought,  however,  to  be  previoufly  obferved,  that  the  Bap- 
tifts  never  advanced  the  abfurdities  which  he  fets  to  their 
acccunt :  he  nianufadlured  them  to  his  liking,  and  then 
charged  ihcm  upon  his  opponents.  It  may  alfo  be  ob- 
ferved, that  the  Baptilts  diliike  his  antifcripturalyic/,  v.-hich 
he  fees  fit  to  aiTix  to  the  covenant. 

The  above  particulars,  fomewhat  reflified,  are, 

1.  The  co'venant  of  circnmc'Jion,  made  with  Abraham  and 
his  ieed,  was  only  a  temporal  covenant,  and  formed  only  a 
tem.poral  church  ;  yet  the  great  promife  of  the  co'venant  of 
grace  had  refpedt,  not  to  natural,  but  only  to  fpiritual  feed  ! 

2.  Though  rhs  great  promii'e  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
had  refpefl,  not  to  natural,  but  only  to  fpiritual  ised,  yet 
the  covenant  of  ciicumcifion  was  l<~>ng  ago  aboliflied. 
Since  the  ccm'ir.g  of  Meffiah,  God  is  no  longer,  by  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion,  the  God  of  Abraham  and  his 
(fpiritual  cr)  natural  feed  ! 

3.  Though  the  great  promife  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
had  no  rofpeft  to  the  natural  feed,  yet  the  natural  feed  were 
rot  only  admitted  to  civcumcifion,  the  feal  (he  Ihculd  have 


50  I  etters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcc/l€r''s 

Hiid  token)  f»f  the  ccA'CuJiUt  of  grace,   but  even,   as   n.er;> 
bers,  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Jewiili  church  ! 

4.  Though  the  Abrahamic  church  was  a  type  of  the- 
ChriPcian  church,  and  in  that  church  clnldren  were  admitted 
to  circumcifion,  the  feal  (the  token)  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  to  all  the  privileges  of  members  ;  yet,  in  the 
golpel  church,  they  are  neither  to  be  recognized  as  mem- 
bers, nor  even  i-t?garded.as  tit  fubje^ls  for  baptifm,  the  feal, 
token,  or  ciitivard  prcftjp.on  of  internal  righteovfnefs,  and  of 
their  being  partakers  of  the  covenant  of  grace  / 

At  the  clofe  of  each  of  thefe  fuppfed  Antip3Edobapttft 
abfurdities,  he  adds  a  note  (J  exclamation,  or  admiration ; 
and,  indeed,  it  is  a  little  to  be  admired,  that  he  fliould,  in 
four  inftances  at  once,  pervert  the  true  fentiments  of  the 
Baptifts,  and  of  his  own  free  choice,  turn  them  into  abfurd- 
ities ;  and,  after  he  had  hniilied  the  matter,  wonder  at  it 
himfelf,  and  by  his  notes  of  admiration,  fet  the  world  at 
wondering. 

The  public  will  determine  whether  there  be  any  abfurdi- 
ty  in  the  above  particulars,  fave  what  Mr.  Wor.cefter  has 
oocafioned  by  his  unfcriptural  feal,  and  by  mifreprefenting 
the  fentiments  of  the  Baptifts. 

In  pages  57,  58,  he  has  another  note,  which  is  nearly 
as  full  of  error  and  palpable  mifreprefentations  as  the  pre- 
ceding. But  the  writer  is  tired  in  correcting  a  man,  whofe 
errors  are  as  numerous  as  his  lines.  However,  we  muft 
anend  him  farther,  for  fome  of  his  mod  reprehenfible 
management  is  yet  before  us. 

With  fixed  intention  to  defend  truth,  and  to  dete<fl  error, 

I  am,  &  c. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible.,  to  fliihhorn  fa^ls^  and  to 

common  fenfc. 


L  E  T  T  E  R      VII. 

MEN,   BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

Y  OUR  attention  would  not  be  fo  long  atreft- 
ed,  by  remarks  on  Mr.  Worcefter's  miflakes,  had  he  not 


Iwo  Uijcomjes^  eTt'.  5.1 

-have  laboured  fo  hard  to  deceive  you,  and  employed  fuch 
unwarrantable  means  to  accomplilh  it.  But  brevity  is  not 
greatly  to  be  conlulted,  when  truth  is  either  to  be  vindi- 
cated and  wrefted  from  the  devourer,  or  firR  principles  of 
the  vilible  church  of  Chrift  to  be  given  up. 

Perhaps  no  Proteftant  ever  made  a  bolder  attack  on 
truth,  than  Mr.  WorccRer  has  done,  or  expoied  himfelf 
more  in  the  attempt.  Says  he,  page  59,  *  For  more  than 
three  thoufand  years,  the  Jcal  of  the  covenant  was  unher- 
fally  applied  to  the  children  of  the  churchy  no  one  forhidding 
it. — It  was  thus  for  the^fpace  of  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  the  introduclion  of  the  ChriRian  difpenfation.' 

Now,  there  is  not  fo  much  as  a  fliadow  of  truth  in  all 
:this  ;  it  is  at  beft  one  of  Mr.  WorceRtr's  bare-faced  mif- 
takes.  I  will  not  accufe  Mr.  WorceRer  of  lying  to  fupport 
a  finking  caufe,  but  this  I  will  fay,  he  is  either  extremely 
"ignorant  of  the  controverfy  in  which  he  writes,  or  he  ivil- 
lingly  makes  miRakes.  A  volume  of  teRimonies,  in  diredl 
contradiction  to  what  he  afiens,  might  be  eafily  produced. 
Take  the  following  as  a  fairple. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Fuller  informs  us,*  that  ChriRianity  had 
a  confiderable  footing  in  England,  not  far  from  the  year 
63,  in  the  reign  of  Arviragus.  From  the  year  63  to,  the 
year  469,  ChriRianity  prevailed  greatly  in  England ;  and 
multitudes  of  martyrs  of  Jefus  were  flain  there,  during  the 
Roman  heathen  perfecutions,  particularly  in  that  under 
Dioclefian  and  Maximian  his  colleague. -j- 

In  the  year  469,  the  Saxons  invaded  England,  and  foon 
made  a  complete  conqueR,  fo  as  to  drive  all  the  ChriRians 
into  Cambria,  which  is  now  called  Wales.  Here,  for  up- 
wards 'of  an  hundred  years,  the  opprefled  and  perfecuted 
remains  of  the  Britlih  church,  had  a  place  of  fome  reR  ; 
.till  St.  or  rather  §inful  AuRin,  in  the  year  596,  came  into 
England,  with  about  forty  of  his  papiRical  aflbciates.;]: 
He  met  with  great  fuccefs  in  converting  the  heathen  Saxons 
to  the  fuperRitions  of  popery.  After  he  had  accomplifhed 
this  bufmefs,  his  next  was  to  convert  the  old  Britifh  church 
(which  had  fled  into  the  woods  and  mountains  of  Wales) 
from  the  order  and  difcipline  which  they  had  received  from 
the  apoRles  or  primitive  miffionaries,  and  kept  pure  till 
.that  time  •  ^ 

*  Eng.  Bap.  Hift.  p.  456.         +  Rapln's  Hift.  Eng.  Vol,  I.  p.  a8. 
\  Fox's  Mart,  p.   149. 
§  Fox's  Mart.  p.  153.     Fuller's  Church  Hiflory,  p.  61. 


52  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/fer's 

All  which  I  need  here  fhow,  to  eftablifh  my  point,  is, 
that  the  remains  of  the  primitive  Britifh  church  were  An- 
tipsedobaptifts,  or  that  they  did  not,  and  would  not,  baptise 
their  children  ;  which  is  perfectly  evident,  from  the  accom- 
modating propofals  which  Auitin  made  to  them.  His 
propofals  were,  "  That  they  fhould  embrace  the  ceremonies 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  particularly,  in  the  time  of  keeping 
Eafter,  and  in  laptiz,ing  their  children."  He  laboured  to 
bring  them  to  thefe  fuperftitions  of  the  mother  of  harloti, 
and  threatened  them  with  deftrudion,  if  they  would  not 
comply.  Thefe  noble  Britons  determined  to  abide  in  the 
dodrines  and  ordinances  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  would  not 
fubmit  to  the  traditions  of  men. 

The  confequence  of  their  fidehty  to  their  Lord,  was 
fierce  perfecution  and  great  deftruction,  with  which  Auftin 
threatened  them  ;  and  which,  upon  their  refufai,  it  is  fup- 
pofed  he  procured  to  be  brought  upon  them  by  Ethelfride, 
king  of  Northumberland,  who  flew  eleven  or  twelve  hun- 
dred of  them  in  one  day,  at  one  place.*  Here  it  is  certain, 
that  the  perfecuted  Britiih  church,  about  the  year  600,  were 
Antipasdobaptifts ;  and  it  is  equally  certain,  by  fair  deduc- 
tion, that  their  anceftors  were  lb,'from  the  firli  planting  of 
Chriftianity  in  England. 

This  is  one  impregnable  contradi<51ion  to  Mr.  Worcefter's 
too  bold  a/levtion  :  for  thefe  truly  Chriftian  Britons  not 
only  did  not  praiSife  infant  baptifm,  but  chofe  death  rather 
than  to  defile  the  church  of  Chrift  with  this  popilh  fuper- 
ftition. 

Salmafius  and  Suiferus,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Booth,  Vol. 
II.  page  76,  informs  us,  tJiat  in  the  two  firft  centuries,  no 
one  was  baptized,  except,  being  inftrucled  in  the  faith,  and 
acquainted  with  the  do(flrine  of  Chrift,  he  was  able  to  pro- 
tefs  himfelf  a  believer  ;  becaufe  of  thofe  words,  "  He  that 
belleveth,  and  is  baptized."  Firft,  therefore,  he  was  a  be- 
liever. Thence  the  order  of  catechumens  in  the  church. 
Then  alfo,  it  was  the  conftant  cuftom  to  give  the  Lord's 
fupper  to  thofe  catechumens  immediately  after  their  bap- 
tifm. f 

Thefe  two  witnefles  teftify,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  not 
given  us  the  truth. 

•  Hift.  Hug.  Bapt.  pref.  p.  aa,  23,  24. 

f  Epift.  ad  Juftum  Patium,  apud  Van  Dale  Hift.  Baptiftn.  ?ui  uri 
Thefau.  £ccle£,  fub.  vou  Suraxis.  Tom.  ii.  p.  1136. 


Two  Difcourfes^  ^c.  55 

Johanus  Bohemius,  as  mentioned  by  Mr.  Andrews,  fays, 
*•  It  was,  in  time  paft,  the  cuftom  to  adminifter  baptifm  to 
them  that  were  inftruded  in  the  faith  ;  but  afterwards, 
when  it  was  thought  and  adjudged  needful  to  eternal  life, 
to  be  baptized,  it  was  ordained  that  new-born  children 
fhould  be  baptized,  and  godfathers  were  appointed,  who 
fhould  make  confeflion  and  renounce  the  devil  on  their 
behalf.* 

The  Petrobrufians  were  condemned,  in  the  Lateran  coun- 
cil, under  Pope  Innocent  II.  in  the  year  1 139,  for  rejediing 
infant  baptifm. f 

If  no  one  forbade,  the  baptifm  of  new-born  infants,  how 
came  it  to  pafs  that  Auguftine,  in  the  fourth  century, 
warned  his  hearers  and  readers  to  beware  of  the  Baptifts, 
and  of  the  Antipasdobaptifts  of  his  day  ;  and  when  writing 
of  infant  baptifm,  to  fay,  *'  Let  none  fo  much  as  ivhifper  any 
tther  dodrine  in  your  ears  /"'  And  how  is  it  that  the  council 
at  Carthage,  in  the  fifth  century,  fhould  fay,  "  It  is  our 
pleafure,  that  whofoever  denieth  that  new-born  infants  aie 
to  be  baptized — let  him  be  accurfed  ?"  Befides,  if  no  one 
forbade  infant  baptifm,  for  tivel'ue  or  fifteen  hundred  years  after 
the  commencement  of  the  Chriflian  difpcnfition,  how  is  it  that 
Mr.  Worcefter  brings  forward  Walafrid  Strabo,  of  the 
ninth  century,  as  reprefenting  that  infant  baptifm  took  its 
origin  in  the  time  of  Auftin?  (as  it  manifestly  did  in  En- 
gland) How  is  this  matter  ?  How  can  it  be  reconciled, 
that  fo  many  fpake,  and  fpake  bitterly,  againft  thofe  who 
rejeded  infant  baptifm,  in  thofe  early  times,  if  not  one,  in 
thofe  times,  ever  forbade  or  fpake  againfl  that  fuperRitious 
pratSfice  ?  This  is  enough  to  evince  that  Mr.  Worcefter's 
pen  is  incorreS. 

In  pages  59,  60,  Mr.  WorceRer  has  the  following  notice- 
able expreffions :  *  If  dui-ing  the  Lift  three  hundred  years, 
there  have  been  fome,  in  the  different  parts  of  Chriftendom, 
who  have  forbidden  little  children  to  be  brought  to  Chrift, 
and  denied  the  application  of  the  feal  of  the  covenant  to 
them ;  yet,  thanks  be  to  God,  in  refped  to  this  interefting 
matter,  the  great  body  of  the  church  has  ftill  adhered  to  the 
divine  inflitute,  and  to  the  uniform  praRice  of  the  faithful  in 
all  former  agesJ 

In  this  quotation,  we  find  one  falfe  infmuation  and  one 
groundlefs  affertion,  provided  the  church  of  Chriil,  and  not 

*  Andrews's  Yindic.  p.  lo6.  f  Dc  Rebat  Ecckf.  c.  a6. 


54  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worcejler's 

the  church  of  Antichrift,  be  intended,  as  having  adhered  t 
the  inftitute  of  infant  baptifm  ;  (thine  inftUute  {traditienar 
or  ftiperflitious  injt'ttute,  he  fhould  have  faid.) 

His  falfe  infinuation  is,  that  the  Baptifts  have  forbidde 
little  children  to  be  brought  to  Chrift.  There  is  no  trut 
in  this.  He  has  not  produced,  and  it  is  beheved  he  canno 
produce,  fo  much  as  a  fingle  inftance,  in  which  a  Baptil 
hath  forbidden  little  children  either  to  be  brought  to  Chril 
or  to  come  to  him.  Does  he  fuppofe,  that  to  bring  littl 
cfiildren  to  baptifm,  is  bringing  them  to  Chrift  ?  It  is  trut 
the  Papifts  may  have  fome  fuch  abfurd  notion  ;  but  th. 
Bible  has  never  told  us,  that  this  was  bringing  them  t( 
Chrift ;  nor  hath  Chrift,  nor  his  difciples,  nor  his  apoftles 
ever  once  mentioned  fuch  a  pra^ice.  Not  a  word,  fron 
Genefis  to  Revelation,  is  faid,  about  infant  baptifm,  mucl 
lefs  of  its  being  a  divine  injilute,  or  of  this  being  the  way  ti 
bring  little  children  to  Chrift. 

His  groundlefs  affertion  is  this  :  « The  great  body  of  th< 
church  has  ftill  adhered  to  the  divine  inftitute  (infant  bap^ 
tifm)  and  to  the  uniform  pradice  of  the  faithful  in  al 
former  ages.' 

In  this  groundlefs  aftertion,  there  are  two  very  great 
miftakes.  The  firft  is,  that  the  great  body  of  the  church 
meaning  the  church  of  Chrift,  adheres  to  infant  baptifm, 
The  other  is,  that  the  faithful,  in  all  former  ages,  have 
adhered  to  this  pradice. 

Two  definitions  appear  to  be  both  lawful  and  expedient, 
in  this  place. 

One  is.  The  mflle  church  of  Chri/t,  is  compofed  of  all  thof 
righteoui  ones,  -who  have  been  baptized  upon  a  profejjion  of  theit 
faith  in  Chrijl. 

The  other  is.  The  vifible  church  of  Antichrift^  is  compofed  oj 
all  thofe,  who  have  been  bapti%ed,  or  fprinkled,  in  manifefl  un- 
belief 

Thefe  plain  definitions  may  caufe  fome  hard  judgments 
to  be  pronounced  againft  me,  by  defigning  and  by  errone- 
ous men ;  but  with  me,  it  is  a  fmall  thing  to  be  Judged  oi 
man's  judgment. 

We  wnll  now  take  notice  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  groundlefs 
affcrticn.  He  fays,  '  The  great  body  of  the  church  adheres 
to  infant  baptifm.'  Had  he  faid,  The  great  body  of  the 
church  of  Antichrift  adheres  to  it,  no  body  could,  with 
truth,  contradift  him.  For,  infant  baptifm  hath  been  one 
of  the  main  pillars  of  Antichrift,  from  the  beginning  ;  and 
fome  of  the  feeds  of  this  appear  to  have  been  fowing,  by 


Tvjo  Difcourfes^  ^c,  55 

..the  Judaizing  teachers,  among  the  churches  of  Galatia, 
■'even  in  Paul's  day.  But  nothing  is  farther  from  the  truth, 
than  this  fentiment,  that  the  great  body  of  the  church  of 
Chrift  hath  adhered  to  infant  baptifm.  Inftead  of  this, 
not  fo  much  as  any  fmgle  branch  of  this  church,  in  any 
I  place  or  -age  of  the  world,  hath  ever  adhered  to  it.  Infant 
baptifm  is  peculiar  to  Antichrift's  kingdom;  and  it  is  ex- 
pedient, that  fuch  as  fear  God,  and  are  not,  through  preju- 
dice, both  blind  and  deaf  to  truth,  fliould  have  here  ex- 
plained to  them,  what  hath,  perhaps  more  than  any  other 
thing,  darkened  the  minds  of  many  good  men,  in  this 
matter.  It  is  this, — Thofe  who  have  written  the  hiftory  of 
the  church,  have  given  us  the  hiftory  of  Antichrift's  church, 
rather  than  that  of  Chrill's.  Whenever  they  iiave  given  us 
any  hints  of  Chrift's  church,  they  have  taken  their  docu-^ 
ments,  or  information,  from  the  polluted  pens  of  Anti- 
chrift's friends,  who  have,  uniformly,  reprefented  Chrift's 
church  as  fome  deformed"fe(5t  of  heretics.  Mr.  Worcefter 
appears  to  have  derived  his  information  from  the  fame, 
fource,  and  to  have  poilefted  too  much  of  the  fame  judg- 
ment. 

Mr.  Worcefter  is  not  fo  blamable  for  not  posTefiang  the, 
hiftory  of  the  church  of  Chrift,  as  he  is  for  not  knowing 
her,  when  he  fees  her.  For  the  church  of  Chrift  hath  been 
hidden,  in  the  place  which  God  appointed  for  her,  for, 
twelve  hundred  and  fixty  years ;  and  it  is  not  many  years, 
or  at  moft,  not  many  ages,  fmce  (he  left  her  wildernefs 
ftation,  and  hath  been  fhovving  herfelf  in  the  world ;  and 
her  hiftory  hath  not  yet  been  written,  or  not  coliefted  into 
regular  form.  But  Mr.  Worcefter,  and  his  brethren  too, 
are  very  much  to  be  blamed,  that  they  do  not  know  the, 
vilible  church  of  Chrrft,  wherever  fhe  difcovers  herfelf; 
toi  though  her  hiftory  be  not  written,  yet  a  defcription  of 
her  is  given,  and  that  plainly  too,  by  Mofes  and  the  proph- 
ets, by  Chrift  and  the  apoftles.  See  Deut.  xviii.  15,  19. 
Pfa.  xxii.  22.  Ifa.  viii.  18-  liv.  13.  Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34. 
John  vi.  45.  Afls  iii.  22,  ult.  Rom.  i  65*7.  i  Cor.  i.  2. 
2  Cor.  i.  I.  Eph,  i.  i  Thef,  i.  i — 4.  Heb.  ii.  11,  12,  13. 
viii.  8 — II.  1  Pet.  ii.  9.  In  thefe  texts,  and  in  many^ 
others,  is  the  Chriftian  church  defignated,  and  plainly  too  ; 
hence  it  is  a  iin  of  ignorance,  not  to  know  her.  But  it- 
may  be  a  fm  of  another  kind  to  oppofe  her,  as  he  and  many 
fhis  brethren  have  dared  very  boldly  to  do. 
If  many  of  thofe,  who  oppofe  the  gofpel  church,  be,  as. 
we  hope  they  are,  the  people  of  God,  fpiritually,  they  ought 


5  6  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  WorceJler*s 

to  hear  his  word,  Rev.  xvill.  4.  "  Come  out  of  her,  my 
people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers  of  her  (Antichrift's)  fins, 
and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues."  Becaufe  that 
many  good  people  are  found  vi^ithin  the  limits  of  Antichrift, 
this  is  no  argument  that  Antichrift  and  Chrift  are  one  t 
but  this  is  exa(ftly  what  was  to  be,  juft  before  the  deJlruBion 
of  fpiritual  Babylon,  or  the  church  of  Antichrift  ;  fome  of 
God's  people  were  to  be  in  her,  and  now  the  command  is, 
that  they  come  out. 

His  other  groundlefs  aflertion,  •  That  the  faithful,  in  all 
former  ages,  have  adhered  to  the  pradice  of  infant  baptifm,* 
is  refuted  by  what  has  been  juft  now  faid.  If  more  be 
thought  needful,  it  will  be  found  in  what  is  foon  to  be  faid 
upon  Mr.  Worcefter's  note,  which  is  now  to  come  under 
confideration. 

The  public  are  eameftly  defired  to  grant  me  a  careful 
attention,  for  I  am  endeavouring  to  plead  the  caufe  of 
Chrift's  rifing  church,  againft  the  laft  ftruggles  of  Anti- 
chrift. 

In  the  note,  pages  60,  61,  62,  the  fpirit  of  Antichrift 
appears  to  have  done  its  utmoft,  in  fpreading,  perhaps,  the 
laft  blind  over  the  minds  of  God's  people,  in  our  land  of 
free  inquiry.  A  greater  ftretch  of  mifreprefentation  and 
groundlefs  aflertion,  perhaps  never  efcaped  the  pen  of  man, 
than  Mr.  Worcefter  hath  given,  in  the  long  note  to  which 
we  ftiall  foon  attend.  The  principal  part  of  this  note  will 
be  inferted,  by  paragraphs  and  fentences,  that  the  public 
may  have  a  full  view  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  fuppofed  ftrength, 
and  may  the  more  fully  difcover  his  weaknefs,  deception, 
falfehood,  and  abfurdity.  Thefe  are  hard  accufations  ; 
but  if  they  be  literally  and  abundantly  juft,  as  applied  to 
Mr.  Worcefter's  writings,  and  if  he  have  made  ufe  of  fuch 
kind  of  management,  in  oppofition  to  the  church  of  Chrift 
Jefus,  and  to  prevent  her  friends  from  beholding  and  em.- 
bracing  her,  ought  he  not  to  be  expofed,  and  truth  vindi- 
cated, though  it  bring  upon  his  writings  jufl  contempt  and 
infamy  ? 

This  note  begins  thus  : — *  As  there  was  no  difpute  about 
baptifm,  in  the  Hrft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  it  fliould  not  be 
expected,  that  much  would  be  found  particularly  on  the 
fubjecfl,  in  the  writings  of  thofe  ages.' 

Anjiver.  There  is  much  found  on  the  fubjeft  of  baptifm, 
in  the  writings  of  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity  ;  but  not  a 
-word  for  infant  baptifm,  in  the  tv  o  firft  centuries,  as  is 
ftiown  at  large  by  Dr.  Gale,  in  his  Reflexions. 


Two  Difcourfes,^  Isfc^,  57 

••Buf-  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  becaufe  there  is  nothing 
dire(51Iy  on  the  fubjecfl,  either  for  or  againft  infant  baptifm, 
in  the  fragments  which  have  ccme  down  to  us,  of  the  writ- 
ings of  the  firft  century,  the  Antipaedobaptifts,  with  an 
afjurance  peculiar  to  themfelves,  have  undertaken  to  affert, 
not  to  prove,  that  during  the  firfl  century,  infant  baptifm 
was  not  pradtifed  in  the  church.  With  equal  propriety  we 
might  afl'ert,  even  had  we  no  proof  to  fupport  our  affertion, 
that  it  was  pradifed  univerfally  :  but  we  are  not  reduced 
to  this  extremity.  The  facred  truth  is,  there  is  as  much 
eviden(;e,  as,  from  the  ftate  of  the  cafe,  could  reafonably  be 
expedled,  tl^at  during  the  firft  century,  and  for  feveral  fuc- 
ceeding  ages,  infant  baptifm  was  prafllfed  in  the  church, 
univerfally,  and  without  contradidion  or  queftion.' 

Aufwer.  In  the  writings  of  the  firft  century,  we  have 
the  beft  evidence  which  the  circumftances  of  the  cafe  ad- 
mit, that  infant  baptifm  v.'as  then  unknown.  It  was  not 
fpoken  againft  explicitly,  to  be  fure,  and  for  this  plain 
reafon — the  fcheme  of  infant  baptifm  was  not  then  invented, 
But  what  is  faid  by  Barnabas,  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Corin- 
tiiians,  and  by  Hermas,  in  his  Vifions,  prove  this — that 
infants  were  nece/Tarily  excluded.  The  fiift  fpeaks  of  the, 
pfirfons  who  were  baptized^  as  living  upon  the  belief  of  the, 
prom':f:s  and  of  the  <word.  The  other  fpeaks  of  the  bapti%ed^ 
as  having  been  taught  in  the  word.  In  Ihort,  they  both 
give  us  an  account  of  believers'  baptifm,  and  of  that  only.*. 
'I'his  is  altogether  inconfiftent  with  the  fuppofttion,  that  they_, 
PraSifed  infant  unbelievers*  baptifm.  Yes,  it  is  wholly  incon- 
fiftent with  the  idea,  that  when  heathen  parents  or  mafters 
were  converted,  their  unconverted  children  and  fervants 
were  admitted  to  baptifm. 

Thefe  fathers  faid  all  which  their  circumftances  permit- 
ted, to  put  infant  baptifm  out  of  countenance  in  our  day. 
It  is  abfurd  to  require  that  they  fhould  have  faid  more,  and 
e,qually  abfurd  to  infer,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  does,  that  be- 
caufe they  did  not  fay  more  than  their  circumftances  per- 
mitted, they. implicitly  favoured  it. 

«  But  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  the  Antipaedobaptifts,  with 
an  affurance  peculiar  to  themfelves,  have  undertaken  to; 
affert,  not  to  prove,  that  during  the  firft  century,  infaat 
baptifm  was  not  praiStifed  in  the  church.' 

*:  Gale's  RciScdlions,  Let  n. 

£  2 


y^  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejler^s 

Reply.  We  have  appealed  to  the  Bible,  to  (lubborn  fad?, 
and  to  common  fenfe.  If"  all  or  any  of  thefe  may  be  ad- 
mitted  as  witnefs,  and  their  evidence  taken  as  proof,  then 
we  have  undertaken  to  prove,  and  not  merely  to  ajfert,  that 
infiint  baptifm  was  not  pradifed  during  the  firft  century  of 
(the  church.  The  Bible  is  not  only  filent  as  to  the  pradice 
of  infant  baptifm,  but  enjoins  pre-requifites  to  baptifm, 
which  are  incompatible  with  the  capacity  of  infants.  One 
Bible  pre-requifite,  and  it  is,  in  the  prelent  cafe,  equally 
conclufive  with  a  thoufand,  is  this — the  fubjeds  of  baptifm 
muft  be  Jirjl  taught,  and  fo  taught  as  to  be  vifible  boiievers. 
Matt,  xxviii.  Mark  xvi.  This  is  the  Bible  tefti'.iony,  as  to 
the  firft  century,  and  indeed,  for  every  other,  as  to  infant 
baptifm  and  the  pradice  of  it. 

Stubborn  fads  fay,  that  the  fathers,  the  bilhops  and  elders 
of  the  church,  in  the  Hrft  century,  pradiled  tis  the  Bible 
enjoins,  and  bapcized  thofe  who  were  pievioufly  taught 
and  brought  to  believe  ;  and  we  have  not  one  line  of  the 
contrary  jiradice,  that  is,  of  unbelievers'  baptifm,  the  firft 
error  of  Aiitichrift.* 

Common  fenfe  teftifies,  that  if  the  fathers  of  the  firft 
century  baptized,  as  they  tell  us  they  did,  upon  a  profelfion 
of  faith  by  the  candidates,  and  fay  not  a  word  of  baptizing 
any  without  fuch  a  profeffion,  then  Mr.  Worcefter  has  no 
claim  upon  our  belief,  when  he,  without  a  Ihadow  of  evi- 
dence, tells  us,  that  '  the  facrecl  truth  is,  there  is  as  much 
evidence,  as,  from  the  ftate  of  the  cafe,  could  reafonably  be 
expeded,  that  during  the  firft  century,  and  for  feveral  fuc- 
ceeding  ages,  infant  baptifm  w'as  pradifed  in  the  church, 
univerfally,  and  without  contradidion  or  queftion.* 

We  fhall  now  examine  his  argument,  or  rather  what  he 
hath  told  us,  and  meant  we  fhould  take  upon  his  mere 
leftimony. 

'  In  the  writings  of  Clemens  Romanus  and  Hermes  Paf- 
tor,  both  cotemporaries  with  the  apoftles,  (fays  he)  paffages- 
are  extant,  which,  by  fair  implication,  prove  the  pradice 
of  infant  baptifm  in  their  day.*  Mr.  Worcefter  gives  us 
not  a  line  from  the  writings  of  either  ;  nor  does  he  dired 
us  where  we  may  find  fo  much  as  a  ferap,  which  implies 
any  fuch  thing.  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  look 
ir.t  Dr.  Gale's  Refledions  on  Dr.  Wall's  hiftory  of  infant 
laptifm,  or  into  Hermes  Paftor's  Vifions,  Lib.  I.  Vif  iii. 
chap.  2,  5,  6,  7.  he  may  difcover  the  r/Cafon  why  Mr.  Wor- 

•  Se«  Galc'i  Refl«<JHons. 


Two  Difcourfesi  Iffc,  59 

ceiler  made  1:0  quotations.  It  is  evident,  none  would  have 
been  lo  his  purpofe  :  for  they  lay  not  a  word  about  infant 
baptifm.  or  any  thing  which  looks  like  it,  or  implies  it,  (if 
we  may  credit  either  Dr.  Wall  or  Dr.  Gale)  unlefs  we 
confider  thefe  fathers  as  being  Papjis,  and  then,  becaufe 
they  held  to  the  corruption  of  nature,  conclude  that  they 
mull;  to  infant  baptifm,  as  an  antidote.  But  this  argument 
is  equally  good,  to  prove  that  all  the  Calviniftic  Baptifts 
hold  to  infant  baptifm. 

We  may  hence  fee,  with  fufficient  clearnefs,  why  Mr. 
Worcefter  ventured  no  quotations  from  the  fathers  of  the 
firft  century  :  and  for  the  fame  reafon,  probably,  he  ven- 
tured none  from  the  fathers  of  the  fecond.  He  only  tells 
us,  that  *  Juftin  Martyr  and  Irenasus  are  more  particular 
and  clear,  to  the  fame  purpofe.'  Yes,  fays  he,  '  more  par- 
ticular and  cLar^^  yet  not  fo  much  as  mention  the  fubjedt. 

As  Mr.  Worcefter  hath  not  feen  fit  to  give  us  a  line  from 
the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  two  firft  centuries, 
I  will  fet  before  the  public  a  (hort  quotation  out  of  the 
apology  which  Juftin  Martyr  made  before  the  Roman  em- 
peror ;  it  may  be  taken  as  a  fample  of  the  fentiment  of  the 
church  in  his  time,  as  to  baptifm  and  the  fubjeds  of  bap- 
tifm. The  palfage,  as  Mr,  Reeves  tranfliites  it,  is,  "  I  fhall 
now  lay  before  you  (fays  Juftin  to  the  emperor)  the  man- 
ner of  dedicating  ourfelves  to  God  through  Chrift,  upon 
our  converfion  ;  for,  fliould  1  omit  this,  I  might  feem  not 
to  deal  fmcerely,  in  this  account  of  the  Chiiftian  religion. 
As  many,  therefore,  as  are  perjuaded  and  believe,  that  the 
things  taught  and  /aid  by  us  are  true,  and  moreover  take 
upon  them  to  live  accordingly,  are  taught  io  pray  and  ajh  of 
God,  with  fajllng,  the  forglvenefs  of  their  former  fins  ; — and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  they  are  brought  te  a  place  of  iL'aier, 
and — are  washed  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and 
Lord  of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jefus  Chrift. —  Ihe  reafon 
of  this  (fays  Juftin)  we  have  from  the  apoftles  ;  for  having 
nothing  to  do  in  onv  Jirjt  birth,  but  being  begotten  by  necejfity, 
or  lulthout  our  oivn  confent. — The  penitent,  who  now  makes 
his  fecond  birth  (or  his  public  putting  on  the  Lord  Jefus) 
an  a£i  of  his  oivn  choice,  has  called  over  him  the  name  of 
God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things, — And,  moreover, 
the  perfon  baptized  and  illuminated,  is  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jefus, — and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft."  * 

•  Booth's  PjedobaptiftUj  Vol.  II,  p.  no,  iii. 


6o  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worcejler's 

This  is  one  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  witnefTes,  and  he  is  a; 
good  one,  to  (how  that  Mr.  Worcefter  h;is  endeavoured  to 
palm  an  impoiition  upon  the  public  :  for  here  is  not  merely  '^ 
a  filence,  as  to  infant  baptifm,  but  a  complete  prohibition  ^1 
of  it.  For  the  Martyr  contrafts  our  natural  birth  whh.  our 
baptifnif  and  tells  us,  that  one  is  iL<ilhout  our  confent,  but  the 
other  an  ad  of  our  oivn  choice.  This  is  the  Bible  zoay,  this 
is  the  Chriftian  way,  this  is  the  good  old  way,  to  receive 
baptifm  as  an  ad  of  our  ozun  choice.  But  to  be  baptize4 
without  our  confent,  as  all  infants  are,  is  the  ivay  of  man's 
invention,  the  papiftical  way,  the  way  of  Antichrift, 

Nor  does  Irenasus,  nor  any  one  of  the  fathers  of  the 
fecond  century,  fay  one  word,  which  he  can  prove  to  his 
purpofe.* 

Mr.  Worcefter  next  comes  down  to  the  third  century, 
and  tells  us,  *  Tertullian  and  Origen  are  explicit  on  the. 
fubjed.'  Then  we  may  exped  fomething  to  the  purpofe. 
And  what  fays  Tertullian  ?  Not  a  woid  which  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter quotes ;  nor  had  he  any  thing  to  the  point,  to  quote 
from  him.  But  we  will  hear  what  Tertullian  fays,  for  he 
has  fomething  to  fay,  and  fomething  too  which  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter would  be  glad  not  to  hear. 

Tertullian,  fpeaking  of  repentance,  of  the  ufe  and  necef- 
fity  of  it,  fays,  "  Baptifm  is  the  feaJ  of  faith,  which  faith  is 
begun  and  adorned  by  the  faith  of  repentance.  We  are 
not,  therefore,  ivajhed,  that  we  may  leanjc  finning,  biit  be- 
caufe  we  have  already  done  it,  and  are  already  purified  in  our 
hearts."\  Dr.  Gale,  upon  thefe  words  of  Tertullian,  makes 
the  following  obfervations,  (p.  512,  513.)  *'  Are  thefe  the- 
words  of  a  man,  who  thought  baptifm  might  be  given  to 
infants  ?  Are  infants  already  purified  in  heart?  Have  they 
left  finning  ?  and  are  they  therefore  ivafoed  ?  Have  they  any 
fuch  faith  as  Tertullian  here  fpeaks  of?  and  yet  he  fay.s> 
Baptifm,  \h<i  feal  of  this  fort,  oi  faith  particularly  ;  and  there- 
fore, doubtlefs  he  thought  the  feal  could  not  be  regularly 
applied,  where  this  faith  was  wanting." 

This  is  one  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  witneftes  for  the  begin-, 
ning  of  the  third  century  ;  and  we  will  hear  a  little  more 
Qf  his  teftimony.  Mr.  Booth  gives  us  the  following  fenti- 
ments  of  TertuUian,  out  of  Du  Pin's  tranflation  :  "  Jefus 
Chrift  fays,  indeed.    Hinder   not  little  children  from  coming  to 

*  See  Gale's  Ref.  throughout.  Booth's  Padobap.  Vol.  II,  p.  79—26, 
Mid  even  Dr.  Wall  himfelf. 

t  De  Pcnetentia,  cap.  vi.  p.  125.  B. 


Two  Difcourfes^  l^c*  6 1 

me  ;  but  that  they  fliould  come  to  him  as  foon  as  they  are 
advanced  in  years,  as  foon  as  they  have  learned  their  reli- 
gion, when  they  may  be  taught  whither  they  are  going, 
when  they  are  become  Chriilians,  when  they  begin  to  be 
able  to  know  Jefus  Chrift. — Thole  who  (hall  duly  confider 
the  great  weight  and  moment  of  this  divine  facrament,  will 
rather  be  afraid  of  making  too  much  hajle  to  receive  it,  than  to 
defer  it  for  fome  time,  fo  they  may  be  the  better  capable 
of  receiving  it  more  worthily."  * 

The  public  will  probably  be  at  no  hefitancy,  v\'hy  Mr. 
Worcefter  produced  no  quotations  for  the  two  firft  centu- 
ries, and  for  the  beginning  of  the  third  :  it  is  fufficiently 
obvious  he  had  none  to  offer.  It  is  not  a  little  furprifmg, 
that  he  ihould  prefume  fo  much  upon^he  credulity  of  the 
public,  as  to  fuppofe  they  would,  in  fuch  an  important 
matter  as  the  pre'ent,  take  his  bare  word,  as  the  ground  of 
their  belief,  for  tlie  fpace  of  more  than  two  hundred  of  the 
firft  years  of  Chriftianity. 

The  firft  appearance  of  evidence,  which  Mr.  Worcefter 
brings  forward,  in  fupport  of  infant  baptifm,  is  in  the  follow- 
ing reputed  words  of  Origen  :  "  What  is  the  realbn,  that, 
whereas  the  baptifm  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgivenefs, 
infants  alfo,  by  the  ufage  of  the  church,  are  baptized  ; 
when,  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  wanted  for- 
givenefs or  mercy,  baptifm  would  be  needlefs  to  them  ?'* 
This  quotation  Mr.  Worcefter  probably  took  from  Rufi- 
nus's  corrupt,  and  very  little  to  be  depended  upon,  tranf- 
lation  of  Origen,  or  from  fome  author  who  had  drawn  it 
from  that  fource. 

There  are  two  reafons,  which  render  it  probable,  that 
even  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  middle,  if  not  towards  the 
latter  end,  of  the  third  century,  did  not  belitve  in  infant 
baptifm,  and  has  faid  nothing  in  its  favour.  One  reafon 
is,  That  nothing  can  be  found,  in  any  of  his  writings  which 
are  now  extant,  to  iliow  that  he  believed  any  fuch  thing. 
The  ether  is.  There  are  fome  pa/Tages,  in  his  original 
Greek,  which  appear  not  reconcileable  with  the  fentiment, 
that  Origen  was  a  Psedobaptift.  I  will  mention  one,  and 
one  too  which  Dr.  Wall  has  feleded  out  of  the  original 
writings  of  Origen,  confidering  it  to  be  as  much  to  his 
purpofe  as  any  palfage  which  can  be  depended  upon  as 
being  Origen's.  Mr.  Booth  gives  us  the  pa/Tage  from  Dr. 
Wall,  thus  :  "  One  may  inquire,  when  it  is  that  the  angelsy 

*  Booth's  rsdobuptifm,  Vol.  II.  p.  92,  93. 


62  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ier*s 

here  fpokeo  of,  are  fet  over  thofe  little  ones,  fhowed  or 
fignified  by  our  Saviour;  whether  they  take  the  care  and 
management  of  them,  from  the  time  when  they,  by  the 
wafhing  of  regeneration,  whereby  they  were  new-born,  do 
as  new-born  babes  defire  the  fincere  milk  of  the  word,  and 
are  no  longer  fubjedl:  to  any  evil  power,  or  from  their  birth, 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  and  his  predefti- 
nating  of  them,  &c."* 

We  have  two  reafons  to  offer,  why  it  is  not  fuppofable 
that  Origen  intended  infants  in  age,  but  muft  have  intended 
infants  in  grace.  One  is.  He  fpeaks  of  them  as  defiring 
the  fmcere  milk  of  the  word,  which  infants  of  a  day  or  a, 
month  old  are  incapable  of  doing.  The  other  reafon  is, 
He  is  fpeaking  of  thofe  little  ones  whofe  angels  do  always 
behold  the  face  of  God  in  heaven.  Thefe  little  ones  are 
confidered  by  Calviniftic  divines,  if  not  by  all  others,  to  be 
believers  in  Chrill. 

Mr.  Worcefter  in  the  next  place  brings  forward  Cyprian, 
who  was  bifliop  of  Carthage,  and  prefident  of  a  council 
which  was  holden  in  that  city  in  tl:!e  year  253.  Before 
which  council  this  queftion  was  difcuffed,  "  At  what  age 
fhall  infants  be  baptized  ?"  Infant  baptifm  being,  at  this 
time,  fo  novel  a  thing,  that  the  bifliops  were  in  doubt  at 
what  age  it  Ihould  be  adminiftered. 

This  council,  compofed  of  African  bifliops,  is  the  firft 
we  read  of,  which  explicitly  admitted  the  fuperftitious  and 
antichriftian  pradice  of  infant  baptifm.  Not  an  European 
or  Aliatic  bifhop  does  Mr.  Worcefter  produce,  for  even 
the  third  century,  who  fpake  one  word  in  favour  of  iniant 
baptifm  :  nor  does  he  produce  any  credible  evidence,  that 
any  in  Africa  adopted  this  pracflice,  till  the  year  253,  or 
nearly  that  date.  And  we  confefs,  that  we  are  not  caieful 
nor  folicitous  to  fhow,  that  infant  baptifm  did  not,  at  this 
time,  begin  to  prevail  ccnfiderably :  for  not  far  from  this 
time,  as  I  may  at  a  future  period  fhow  at  large,  the  church 
of  Jefus  began  to  take  her  place  in  the  wildeinefs,  as  God 
had  appointed  her. 

Mr.  W'rccfter  now  comes  down  to  the  fourth  century, 
and  manifelfly  with  a  confiderable  degree  of  courage,  as 
well  he  may,  for  liow  he  hath  fomething  to  fhow  for  infant 
baptifm  :  for  the  error  for  which  he  pleads,  had  not  a 
little  prevailed,  before  the  end  of  this  century.  Says  he, 
•Gregory   Nazianzer,  Bafil,  Ambrofe,  Chryfoftome,  and 

•  Wall's  Hift.  of  hif.  Bap.  Part  I-  p.  33. 


Two  Difcourfes^  l^c»  -^3 

Jerome,  all  of  whom  flouriftied  within  about  a  hundred 
years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian,  are  all  explicit  on  the  fub- 
je<St ';  explain  the  defign  of  infant  baptifm,  mention  it  as 
coming  in  the  place  of  circumciiion,  and  fpeak  of  it  as  the 
univerfal  and  undifputed  praftice  of  the  church.' 

Mr.  Worcefter,  even  in  this  fourth  century,  which  was 
famous  for  the  invention  of  fuperftitious  ceremonies,  runs 
a  little  too  faft,  and  takes  more  for  granted  in  fix  lines, 
than  he  will  be  able  to  prove  in  the  fame  number  of  years. 
We  are  willing  to  grant  him  every  word  of  truth,  for  we 
fear  nothing  from  that  quarter  ;  but  we  muft  corred  him 
ftep  by  ftep,  that  no  impofition  may  be  palmed  on  the 
public.  He  tells  us,  that  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Bafil,  who 
was  bilhop  of  Cefarea  ;  Ambrofe,  who  was  bifliop  of  Mi- 
lan ;  Chryfoftome,  bifliop  alternately  of  Antioch  and  Con- 
ftantinople  ;  and  Jerome,  monk  of  Jerufalem,  are,  all  of 
them,  not  only  explicit  on  the  fubjedl  of  infant  baptifm,  but 
that  they  fpake  of  it  as  the  univerfal  and  undifputed  prac- 
tice of  the  church. 

We  by  no  means  deny  that  infant  baptifm  was,  in  this 
century,  praAifed  in  the  church  of  Rome ;  but  that  it  was 
the  univerfal  pradice-  of  the  church,  as  Mr.  Worcefter 
aflerts,  is  not  true,  unlefs  he  intends  the  univerfal  practice 
of  the  church  of  Antichrift,  which  now  very  manifeftly 
fhowed  herfelf,  and  had  already  driven  the  gofpel  church 
into  her  hiding  place. 

A  few  quotations  will  expofe  Mr.  W<5rcefter's  miftakes. 

•*  Gregory  Nazianzen,  fpeaking  of  fuch  as  died  without 
baptifm,  inftances  in  fuch  as  were  not  baptized  {^d'ta  nepl- 
oftta)  by  reafon  of  their  infancy.  And  the  fame  Nazianzen 
himfelf,  though  a  bifhop's  fon,  and  a  long  time  trained  up 
under  his  father's  care,  was  not  baptized  till  he  came  to 
age,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  own  life."  * 

"  Again,  St.  Gregory  advifes  people  to  delay  their  chil- 
dren's baptifm,  till  they  are  capable  to  hear  and  anfwer 
fome  of  the  holy  words."  f 

"  Ambrofe  and  Chryfoftome,  though  born  of  Chriftian 
parents,  were  not  baptized  till  they  were  adult."  \ 

"  St.  Ambrofe,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Auftin,  were  born 
of  Chriftian  parents,  and  yet  not  baptized  till  the  full  age 
of  man,  or  more.''^ 

*  Gale's  Reflexions,  p.  39.  t  ^'^id.  41. 

I  Hift.  Eng  Bapt.  Vol.  II.  Appen,  p.  68.         §  Ibid.  Vol.  I.  pref.  p.  51. 


64  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejler^s 

From  thefe  quotations,  we  fee  that  Gregory,  Chryfof. 
tome,  Ambrofe,  and  Jerome,  four  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  five 
worthies,  whom  he  brought  to  prdve  the  univerfality  of 
psdobaptifm  in  the  fourth  century,  were  themfelves  the 
children  of  Antipaedobaptifts  ;  their  parents  being  Chrif- 
tians,  and  one  or  more  of  them  bifhops,  yet  did  not  have 
their  children  baptized  :  befides,  Gregory,  the  firft  of  them, 
advifed  the  delay  of  infant  baptifm,  till  they  were  capable 
to  hear  and  anfwer  fome  of  the  holy  words.  The  public 
will  judge  what  credit  is  to  be  attached  to  Mr.  Worcefter's 
affertions. 

We  will  now  hear  what  he  has  to  fay  of  paedobaptifm 
in  the  fifth  century.  The  public  will  obferve  how  he  la- 
bours, continually,  to  imprefs  his  readers  with  an  idea,  that 
what  he  relates  is  much  nigher  the  beginning  of  Chriftian- 
ity  than  what  it  really  is.  What  he  fays,  with  relation  to 
infant  baptifm  in  the  fifth  century,  is  this : — 

'  Auftin,  who  was  coteniporary  with  fome  of  thefe  lofiy  and 
who  jlour'ijhed  only  about  tivo  hundred  and  eighty  years  after 
the  apofllest  in  a  controverfy  with  Pelagius,  alleged  the 
pra<5lice  of  infant  baptifm,  in  proof  of  the  doftrine  of  orig- 
inal fm.  "  Why  are  inflmts  (fays  he)  baptized  for  the 
remiffion  of  fm,  if  they  have  none  ?  Infant  baptifm  the 
whole  church  pra«5lifes  :  it  was  not  inftituted  by  councils, 
but  was  ever  in  ufe."  Pelagius,  whofe  intereft  it  was  to 
fet  this  argument  afide,  was  fo  far  from  denying  the  al- 
leged faft,  that  in  reply  to  the  fuggeftion  of  fome,  that  by 
deiiying  original  fin  he  denied  the  right  of  infants  to  bap- 
tifm, he  utterly  difcards  the  idea,  and  aflirms,  that  he  never 
heard  of  any,  not  even  the  moft  impious  heretic,  who  de- 
nied baptifm  to  infants.  1  his  teftimony  (fays  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter)   is  impregnable.'     Why  fo  ?  for  to  it  we  anfwer — 

1.  The  v.hole  of  this,  fo  far  as  it  has  any  formidablenefs 
in  it,  may  be  a  forgery,  as  many  other  things,  of  the  like 
nature,  have  been  proved  to  be. 

2.  To  make  the  moft  of  it,  it  is  but  the  afTertion  of  one 
man  ;  and  if  this  one  man's  fingle  a/Tertion,  ftiould  not  be 
more  corred  than  fome  of  Mr.  Worcefter's,  it  might  not 
be  thouglit  impregnable. 

3.  It  is  not  only  the  aftertion  of  but  one  man,  but  this 
one  man  does  not  afl'ert,  that  there  is  none  who  denies 
infant  baptifm  ;  but  that  he  has  heard  of  none.  Now,  if 
this  Pelagius  had  not  heard  of  every  thing,  his  afTertion 
might  be  true,  and  yet  the  whole  body  of  Chrift's  vifible 
church  might  deny  baptifm  to  infants :  for, 


Tvjo  Dlfcourfes^  isfc.  6$ 

4.  The  vKlble  church  of  Chriil  was,  at  this  time,  hidden 
in  the  place  which  God  had  prepared  for  her  ;  and  little 
or  nothing  was  now  feen  or  heard  of  the  true  go/pel  church, 
in  what  was  called  the  Chriftian  world  ;  but  the  church  of 
ylntichrijl  was  in  high  repute.     Hence, 

5.  If  Pelagiiis  fpake  or  wrote  the  words  which  Mr. 
Worcerter  fuppofes,  and  if  they  were  the  iimple  truth  of 
his  heart,  they  only  prove,  that  Pelagius  knew  nothing  of' 
the  hidden  church  of  Chrift.  They  by  no  means  prove 
what  Mr.  Worcefter  1^'iflied  them  to,  that  the  church  of 
Chrift  held  to  infant  baptifm. 

As  to  what  Auftin,  or  Augufline,  fays,  "  Infant  baptifm 
the  whole  church  pradifes  :  it  was  not  inftituted  by  coun- 
cils, but  was  ever  in  ufe ;"  we  anfwer — 

1.  That  he  had  refpcdt  to  the  church  of  Antichrlft, 
which  alone  was  in  reputation  jn  his  day  ;  and  the  whole 
of  this  church  did,  no  doubt,  then,  as  it  does  Hill,  pradife 
infant  baptifm. 

2.  As  to  AuRin's  faying,  "  Inftnt  baptifm  was  ever  in 
«/-,"  we  need  only  obfcrve,  if  Aultin  thus  faid,  he  made  a 
large  miil-ake. 

Mr.  Worcefter  in  the  next  paragraph  is  rather  too  bold 
in  his  affertion.  His  words  are,  *  From  this  period  (fays 
he)  the  matter  is  clear,  beyond  difpute.  Dr.  Gill  himfelf, 
one  of  the  nioft  learned  of  the  Antipcedobai^tift  writers, 
acknowledges  that  infant  baptifm  was  the  pradice  of  the 
church  univerfally,  from  the  third  to  the  eleventh  century.' 
Wercl  t  not  that  I  am  grown  familiar  with  Mr.  Worcefter's 
erroneous  ftatements  and  groundlefs  afTertions,  this  might 
a  little  furprife  me.  I  v.  ill  give  the  public  Dr.  Gill's  own 
words,  and  then  each  w-ill  judge  for  himfelf. 

Says  the  Doctor,  in  his  Brief  Illuftrations,  &c.  chap.  ii. 
conf.  4.  "  Chrift  h;ts  no  where  promifed,  that  his  dodrine 
and  ordinances  fhould  not  be  perverted  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, has  given  clear  and  Jirong  intimations,  that  there 
Ihould  be  a  general  fallmg  aivay,  and  departure  from  the 
truth  and  ord'mances  of  the  gofpel,  to  make  way  for  the 
revelation  of  Autlchr'if.  :  and  though  it  will  be  allowed,  that 
during  this  period  infant  baptiim  prevailed,  yet  it  did  Not 
univerfally  obtain.  Tliere  were  lu'itnejfcs  for  adult  baptifm  in 
every  age :  and  Chrift  had  a  church  in  the  'wildernefs,  in  ob« 
fcurity,  at  this  time,  namely,  in  the  val/ics  of  Piedmont i 
who  were,  from  the  beginimig  of  the  apojlafy,  and  witneffed 
againft  it,  and  bore  their  tejlimony  againft  infant  baptifm,^'* 

F 


56  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  WorceJ}er*s 

It  is  tiothing  ftrange,  that  a  perfcn  engaged,  as  Mr. 
Worceikr  is,  in  the  caufe  of  Antichrift,  l"hould  pervert  and 
mifreprefent  the  ancients  ;  but  that  a  perfon  of  fenfe  Ihould 
cxpofe  his  charadler  and  veracity,  in  flagrantly  mifrepre- 
fenting  the  moderns,  as  he  does,  is  not  a  little  to  be  won- 
dered at. 

After  Hiying  juft  what  he  pleafed,  not  only  without  evi- 
dence, but  contrary  to  evidence,  he  produces  a  quotatkn 
from  Dr.  Wall's  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm,  as  he  tells 
us,  and  the  quotation  itfelf  is  eqnally  alide  from  truth, 
witli  his  other  quotations,  and  affertions  of  his  own.  Not 
in  one  inftance  does  he  inform  us  where  any  of  his  quota- 
tions are  to  be  found:  he  probably  did  not  know,  or  was 
not  fond  of  their  being  examined. 

As  he  comes  near  the  clofe  of  this  long  note,  to  which 
we  have  given  confidernble  attention,  he  obferves,  '  The 
unprejudiced  reader  will  now  judge,  witlj  how  much  can- 
dour and  truth,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  in  fome  late 
publications,  to  make  the  unlearned  and  unRable  believe, 
that  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  had  its  rife  in  the  dark 
ages,  under  the  influence  of  popery.*  I  add.  The  unpreju- 
diced reader  will  now  judge,  with  how  much  camlour  and 
truth,  an  attempt  has  been  made,  by  Mr.  Worcefter,  to 
make  the  unlearned  and  unliable  believe,  that  the  human 
rite  of  infant  baptifm  had  its  rife  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles, 
and  that  it  was  pra-itiied  for  twelve  or  Jifteen  hundred  yeats, 
no  one  forbidding  it.  Efpecially,  fmce  the  fame  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter tells  us,  that  'from  Walafrid  Strabo  (a  man,  fays 
Molheim,  of  no  mean  reputation)  fome  paflages  have  been 
quoted,  in  which  he  reprefents  infant  baptilm  as  having 
had  its  origin  about  the  time  of  St.  Aurtin :'  which,  in- 
deed, appears  to  have  been  the  time  of  the  introdudion  of 
infant  baptifm  into  England.* 

'As  to  the  ailertion  (fays  Mr  Worcefter)  in  the  Minia- 
ture Hiftory  of  the  Baptiiis,  "  That  the  Waldenfes,  Wick- 
liffites,  aiad  Huflltes  were  Biptifts,"  it  may  fufHce  to  fay, 
there  is  fufficient  evidence  that  it  has  no  foundation  in 
truth.'  Here  Mr.  Worcefter  rakes  all  for  granted.  Lee 
Mr.  Worcefter,  or  let  any  other  perfon,  attempt  to  fhow 
that  it  is  not  founded  in  truth,  then  vrill  the  author  of  it  en- 
deavovir,  if  life  and  health  continue,  to  fliow  fuch  an  at- 
tempt to  be  vain  ;  and  not  only  fo,  but  that  the  Miniature 
Hiftory  is  founded  on  the  bioad  bafis  of  truth.     For  the 

•  Se«  Hift.  Eng.  Bapt.  Vol.'II,  prcf. 


1 


Two  Difcourfesj  Isfc.  67 

prefent,  it  fhall  be  only  obferved,  that  as  Mr.  Worcefter 
and  his  brethien  can  trace  their  defcent  from  the  Papifts, 
and  their  peculiarities,  fuch  as  infant  laptifm,  infant  church 
memberfliip,  unbelievers'  baptifm,  baptifm  upon  the  faith 
cf  others,  &c.  from  the  man  of  fm,  and  no  farther  ;  fo  the 
Baptifts  can  trace  their  defcent,  and  their  peculiarities,  fuch 
as  believers'  baptifm,  communion  of  faints,  &c.  to  the 
Waldenfes,  Wickliffites,  Huffites,  Petrobrufians,  &c.  and 
through  them  to  the  apoftles,  and  to  the  Bible,  where  they 
ftill  find  their  peculiaries,  and  an  account  of  their  anceilors. 

Thus  far  it  appears  that  Mr  Worcetter  is  fubft,antially 
incorreft,  in  every  material  point.  Not  to  a  Jingle  dl^culty 
has  he  put  the  Baptifts,  unlefs  the  trouble  of  detedting  his 
antifcriptural  and  erroneous  notions  of  the  gofpel  church, 
and  the  expofmg  of  his  falfe  pofitions,  be  confidered  one. 

It  is  hoped,  that  the  reader's  deeds  are  not  fo  evil,  and 
his  heart  fb  hard,  that  he  will  reject  the  light,  and  refufe 
to  come  to  it,  left  his  deeds  ftiouid  be  reproved.  Eternity 
will  reveal  all  errors  and  remove  ignorance,  but  it  will 
never  convert  and  fave  fuch  as  hate  the  light. 

In  the  mean  time, 

I  am,  the  reader's  and  the  public's,  &ic. 


We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jiubborn  fads,  and  tc 
common  fenfe. 


LETTER      Vni. 

MEN,  BRETHREM,  AND  FATHERS, 

W  E  would  not  folicit  your  attention  to  any 
more  of  Mr.  Worcefter's  miftakes,  were  it  not  that  the 
honour  of  the  Chriliian  Lawgiver,  the  advancement  of  his 
rifing  church,  and  your  own  happinefs,  require  that  you 
fhould  know  the  truth. 

Mr.  Worcefter  in  the  firft  place  took  a  wrong  fet  oiF, 
and  he  has  fo  exadtly  kept  his  firft  dire(5lion,  that  he  has 
feldom  come  within  fight  of  truth's  highway.  His  notions 
of  the  church  of  Chiift  appear  to  be  as  erroneous  as  were 
the  notions  of  the  oli  Jewiih  church  with  refpeft  to  Chrift 


68  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/?cr*s 

himfelf.  He  alfo  appears  to  be  as  ready  to  roiltake  what 
is  faid  of  the  golpel  churcli,  as  the  Jews  were  to  miftake 
Y'hat  Cbrift  faid  of  himfelf.  Not  only  fo,  but  he  is,  mani- 
feftly,  equally  ready  to  mifreprefent  the  fezuiment  and 
practice  of  the  gofpel  church,  that  he  may  make  room  for 
his  Judaizing  fentiments,  and  for  his  Jewifh  church  in 
gofpel  times. 

Page  57,  he  tells  the  public,  that  *  when  the  Antipsedo- 
baptilts  would  prove  that  the  Abrahamic  covenunt  has 
ceafed,  the  arguments  advanced  only  go  to  fhow  that  the 
Mofaic  law,  or  Sinai  covenant,  is  aboliiuod.' 

From  this  (latenient  of  the  matter,  no  one  would  receive 
a  jull  idea  of  the  ientimcnts  or  arguments  of  the  Antipsedo- 
baptifts.  They  have  no  difpofition  to  prove,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  which  included  the  protaife,  that  in 
him  and  in  his  feed  all  the  families  of  the  earth  Ihould  be 
blefTed,  has  ceafed.  But  when  they  v/ould  prove,  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  of  circumcifion  has  ceafed,  their  argu- 
ments go  to  (how,  that  the  law  of  commandments  con- 
tained in  ordinances  is  aboliihed,  and  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  is  one  of  thefe  commandments  and  ordinances. 
Let  Mr.  Worcefter  and  his  bretLren  prove  the  contiary,  if 
they  be  able. 

Again,  pages  57,  58,  fays  he,  '  When  they  would  prove, 
that  the  infant  feed  of  the  church  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  jirguments  adduced  only  go  to  fhow,  that  be- 
lievers, who  have  never  received  baptifm,  ought  to  be 
baptized.' 

Mr.  Worcefter  is  very  forgetful,  or  he  knows  better  than 
to  mifreprefent  matters  in  this  way.  He  knows,  or  ought 
to  know,  for  he  has  had  the  meaiis  of  knowing,  that  the 
arguments  of  the  Antipgcdobaptifts  go  to  prove,  that  the 
gofpel  pre-requifite  to  baptifm  is  fuch  as  new-born  infants 
cannot  poffefs,  and  therefore  are  excluded  from  the  ordi- 
nance, by  the  pre-requifite  enjoined  in  the  inftitution.  Had 
he  have  told  tiie  public,  that  the  arguments  of  the  x'^nti- 
psedcbaptifts  go  to  prove,  that  the  gofpel  enjoins,  that  per- 
lons  lliall  be  taught,  or  difcipled,  previous  to  baptifm,  and 
fiuce  new-born  infants  can  bo  neither  taught  nor  dilcipled 
they  are  not  to  be  baptized,  then  would  he  have  told  us 
the  iimple  truth.  But  the  plain  truth  would  not  have 
ferved  his  purpofe  ;  he  therefore  chofe  to  mifreprefent  us, 
or  elle  he  has  very  ignorantly  done  it. 

Mr.  V\orc^[\sr'sJijyj  inference,  page  64,  muft  now  com- 
mand a  little  attention ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  it,  both  on 


Two  DifcourfeSf  ^c.  69 

account  of  its  novelty  and  the  popifh  method  which  he 
hath  adopted  in  its  fupport.  The  inference  is,  '  It  may  be 
inferred  from  our  fubjeft,  thxt  fprinkling  or  ajfufzon  is  a  valid 
and  Icriptural  mode  of  baptifm' 

Would  it  not  have  been  more  fatisfadory  to  the  public, 
had  Mr.  Worcefter  have  {hown  us  from  the  word  of  God, 
that  fprinkling  or  affufwn  is  a  valid  and  fcriptural  mode  of 
baptifm  :  but  this  he  could  not  do.  He  has  done  the  beft 
he  could  :  he  has  inferred  from  his  fubjeft  that  it  is  fo  ; 
he  has  aifo  endeavoured  to  prove  it.  His  argument  is,  in 
dort,  the  following  : — 

The  Paedobaptift  church  is  the  true  gofpel  church.  The 
true  gofpel  church,  in  all  ages,  has,  according  to  the  pur- 
pofe  and  promife  of  God,  had  efientially  corredl  views  of 
the  facraments.  1  he  true  church,  for  twelve  or  fifteen 
hm.dred  years,  univerfally,  allowed  baptifm  by  fprinkling 
©r  afFufion  to  be  fcriptural  and  valid.  '  Hence,  if  baptifm 
by  fprinkling  or  afFufion  be  not  valid  and  fcriptural,  then^ 
for  the  firft  twslve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  the  views  of 
the  whole  body  of  the  Chriftian  world  rcfpeding  baptifm, 
the  firft  facrament  of  the  church,  were  effentially  erroneous.* 

Here,  as  his  manner  elfewhere  is,  he  takes  for  gTante4 
the  very  things,  and  the  only  things,  which  have  need  to 
be  proved,  and  then  draws  his  conclufton,  as  though  his 
premifes  were  eftablifhed. 

In  the  firfl  place,  he  takes  for  granted  that  the  Paedo- 
baptiit  church  is  the  true  gofpel  church,  which  the  Anti- 
paedobaptirts  have*aivvays  denied  ;  and  they  have  ever  con- 
sidered paedobaptifm  as  a  badge  of  Antichrjlt,  if  not  her 
•flential  charaiteriftic. 

His  next  premife  is  fully  granted,  and  is,  no  doubt, 
fufficiently  correcft  ;  and,  if  true,  will  fpoil  his  bufinefs  of 
fprinkling  and  affufion.  It  is  this.  The  true  gofpel  church, 
in  all  ages,  has,  according  to  the  purpofe  and  premife  of 
God,  had  eifentialiy  corre(5i  views  of  the  facraments. 

We  will  now  hear  his  other  pofition,  which  is.  The  true 
church,  for  twelve  or  fifteen  huncirt'd  years,  univerfally, 
allowed  baptifm  by  fprinkling  or  afFurion  to  be  fcriptural 
and  vahd. 

Had  not  Mr.  Worcefter  have  dealt  fo  largely  in  univerfal 
afHrmatlues,  he  would  not  haye  fo  largely  expofed  himfekf 
to  fevere  reproof  at  every  turn. 

The  hiftoric  truth  is  juft  this.  The  true  church  of  Chrift 
never,  in  any  age,  fallowed  fprinkling  or  affufion  to  be  fcrip- 
F  2 


70  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce/ler*s 

tural  and  valid  b;ipiifm.  But  Mr.  Worcefter  is,  in  fa<ft, 
fpcaking  of  the  church  of  Antichriit  ;  and  had  he  kept 
hiitcric  truth  on  his  (ide,  even  wiih  refped  to  her,  he  would 
have  been  lefs  ceniurable  than  he  now  is.  He,  doubtlefs,  - 
had  the  hiftory  of  A ntichrift- before  him,  and  might  have 
been  as  corred  as  ihe  is  ;  but  even  the  general  corruptions 
of  c-MUichrilt  were  not  fufficiencly  erroneous  for  him,  but 
ha  mull  have  them  always  to  have  been  as  great  as  they 
•were  when  they  came  to  their  highell  degree  of  perfednefs. 
Hiltory  informs  us,  that  even  Antichriit  had  not  obtained 
thiic  degree  of  prefumption,  as  to  fet  afide  the  form  or 
matcer  ot"  gyfpel  baptifm,  and  to  change  it  for  fprinkling 
Or  aHufion,  except  in  cafes  of  ficknefs  or  fome  bodily  in- 
firnnty,  till  the  year  1305  j  when  Pope  Clement  the  fifth» 
at  the  fecond  fynod  of  Ravenna,  approved,  that  baptifm 
might  be  given,  no  necejftty  compelling,  by  fprinkling.* 

Indeed,  in  Germany,  fo  late  as  the  year  1542,  it  was  not 
generally  known,  if  at  all,  that  any,  even  in  the  church  of 
Antichrift,  pradifed  or  allowed  fprinkling,  fave  in  the  cafe 
of  Uckuefs  or  other  infirmity,  as  the  following  allures  us  : — 
*'  Johannes  Bugenhagius  Pomeranus,  when  he  faw,  at 
Hamburgh,  an  infant  brought  to  baptifm,  wrapped  in 
fwaddling  clothes,  and  water  fprinkled  upon  its  head,  was 
amazed  ;  for  that,  except  in  the  cafe  of  neceffity,  for  per- 
fons  fick  in  their  beds,  he  had  neither  feen,  nor  heard,  nor 
in  any  hiftory  read,  of  any  fuch  thing.  Vv  hereupon  there 
being  a  convocation  of  all  the  minifters,  it  was  afked  of 
Mr.  John  Fritz,  who  had  been  formerly  minifter  at  Lubeck, 
how  baptifm  was  there  adminiftered,  who  anfwered,  "  In- 
fants were  there,  as  in  ail  Germany,  baptized  naked ;  but 
he  was  Ignorant  how  that  peculiar  manner  of  baptizing 
had  crept  in  at  Hamburgh  "  "  At  length  it  was  agreed 
amongd  tliem,  that  they  Ihould  fend  to  know  the  opinion 
of  Luther,  and  the  divines  at  Wcrtemberg,  in  this  matter  ; 
which  being  done,  Luther  wrote  back  to  Hamburgh,  that 
this  j'pr-inkiing  was  an  abufe,  which  ought  to  be  removed  ; 
that  thefeupon  imrocrfion  was  reftored  at  Hamburgh. "-f 

It  was  not  till  the  year  i6oj,  that  fprinkling  obtained  a 
peaceable  footing  in  England  ;  and  even  to  this  day.  imlefs 
their  rubrick  has  been  lately  changed,  their  priefts  are 
obliged  to  dip  the  well  children  in  the  water.;}: 

»  Hift.  Eng,  Bapt.  Vol.  II.  Appenriix,  p.  70.  "t   Ibid 

4  See  Eng.  Cl.urch  Rubrick  on  Baptifm. 


"Tvjo  Difcourfes,  ^V.  71 

Even  when  fprinkling  was  fubftituted  for  bi^ptifrn,  in 
cafe  of  ficknefs,  yet  it  vas  a  doubtful  matter,  at  beft,  ■whe- 
ther it  v/ere  in  fad  Chrillian  baptiihi,  or  would  anfwer  for 
it.  This  is  evident,  from  what  the  piimitive  fathers  in  the 
church  of  Antichrift  have  faid  upon  the  fubjecfl.  Cyprian 
thought  it  might  be  fo  confidered.*  But  this  fprinkling  or 
pouring  for  baptiim,  was  thought  and  judged  fo  imperfeft, 
that  it  was  not  thought  lawful  for  any  who  were  baptized 
in  this  way,  to  be  admitted  to  any  office  in  the  cluirch. 
See  this  point  dated  lomewhat  largely  in  Dr.  Gale's  Ke- 
fleiflions,  from  page  207  to  212. 

What  could  have  induced  Mr.  Worcefler  to  have  framed 
fuch  palpable  miftakes,  the  public  will  judge,  each  one  for 
himfelf.  How  he,  in  a  land  of  freedom,  where  every  one 
has  liberty  to  fpeak  and  write  the  truth,  could  contradift 
the  Bible,  ftubborn  fads,  and  common  fende,  as  he  has  done^ 
is  a  problem  I  know  not  how  otherwife  to  folve,  than  to 
confider  him  fo  blinded  by  prejudice  and  party,  that  he 
knew  not  what  he  faid,  nor  whereof  he  affirmed.  Indeed, 
he  appears  exceeding  mad  agaiuil  the  church  of  Chrift,  and 
as  he  proceeds  in  his  pages  his  difpolition  to  mifreprefent 
her  increafes. 

I  pafs  over  feveral  unfounded  afTertions,  that  I  may  come 
the  fooner  to  a  moft  notorious  (lip  of  his  pen,  judgment, 
information,  or  confcience.  He  will  cloak  himielf  under 
which  he  pleales ;  but  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  follow- 
ing aflertion  of  his  is  a  notorious  untruth.  Says  he,  page 
66,  'The  Anabaptifts,  or  Antipaedobaptifts,  my  brethren, 
are  a  fed  of  piodern  date.'  He  adds  another  fentence, 
which  is  no  lefs  contiaiy  from  ftubborn  fads  than  is  the 
preceding.  'They  (fays  he)  had  their  origin  fome  time 
after  the  reformation  lu^der  Luther  and  Calvin  ;.  and  their 
origin,  certainly,  though  we  would  by  no  means  reproach 
our  more  regular  brethren  of  the  prelent  day  with  it,  was 
but  very  little  calculated  to  imprefs  a  belief  that  the  true 
church  of  God  was  only  to  be  found  among  them.* 

The  origin  of  the  Antipaedobaptifts  (or  of  the  Anabap- 
tifts,  as  they  were  ftyled  by  their  enemies  by  way  of  con- 
tempt, as  Chriftiacs  were  once  called  Nazarenes)  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter  knows  not,  or  he  will  not  acknowledge  ;  he  therefore 
cannot  inform  us  whether  it  was  honourable,  or  the  reverfe. 
*  They  had  their  origin  (he  fays)  fome  time  after  the 
refoimation  under  Luther  and  Calvin.'     But  the  fad  is, 

♦  Cyprian,  Ept.  Corn,  ad  Fablum,  apud  Niceph.  Aib.  6.  cap.  3. 


72  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Woreef}er*s 

tlielr  origin  cannot  be  found  by  their  enemies  :  for  they 
are  unwilling  to  find  it  ainonp;  the  dilcipies  of  John  and  of 
Chrift,  where  it  reahy  is.  'i  hey  can  find  it  no  where  elfe. 
But  to  expofe  Mr.  Worcefter's  ra^hnef^,- relative  to  the 
origin  of  the  Baptifts,  Anabaptifts,  or  Antipasdobaptiits,  I 
will  give  the  public  a  fhort  account  of  it,  or  rather  of  the 
Pajdobaptills'  entire  uncertainty  or  ignorance  in  this  mat- 
ter, as  ftated  by  Mofheim,  in  his  celebrated  hiflory  of  the 
church  of  Antichrift.  His  words  are,  "The  true  origin  of 
that  ft:  cl,  <ivh'it'h  acquired  the  denominalion  of  the  Anabaptifts 
by  their  adminlftering  anew  the  rite  of  baptifm  to  thofe 
who  come  over  to  their  communion,  and  derived  that  of 
Mennonites  from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the 
greateft  part  cf  their  prefent  ielicity,  is  hid  in  the  remote 
depths  of  antiquity,  and  is  of  confequence  extremely  difficult  to 
he  ajcertained.  This  uncertainty  will  not  appear  furprifmg, 
when  it  is  confidered,  that  this  fe^ft  darted  up  all  of  a  fudden, 
in  fever jI  countries  at  the  fame  point  of  time,  under  leaders  of 
different  talents  and  different  intentions,  and  ai  the  very 
period  when  \m  Jirfl  conttfl  of  the  ref  rmers  with  the  Roman 
pontiffs  drev/  the  attention  of  the  world,  and  employed  the 
pens  of  the  learned,  in  fuch  a  manner  as  to  render  all  other 
i)bje(5ts  and  incidents  almoll  matters  of  indifference."* 

Mr.  Worcefter  will  not  deny  the  teftimony  cf  his  brother 
Molheim  ;  if  he  (hould,  a  multitude  of  others  might  be 
produced,  to  ellabli(h,  in  fubllance,  the  fame  fa<5t. 

After  making  feveral  other  aff^rtions,  not  founded  in 
faft,  he  fays,  page  67,  'Can  we,  then,  believe  that  their 
mode  of  baptiim  only  is  fcriptural  and  valid  I  If  fo,  what 
becomes  of  the  faithfulnefs  of  God  to  his  promifes  ?  * 

Reply.  Did  God  ever  promil'e  to  continue  the  gofpel 
ordinances  to  the  church  of  Antichrift  ?  Or,  is  he  unfaith- 
ftil  to  his  promifes,  if  he  have  not  continued  the  true  gofpel 
baptifm,  through  all  generations,  in  the  antichriRian  church 
of  Kome  ?  The  church  of  Chrift,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  ought 
to  know,  and  he  would  recolledl,  were  he  not  darkened  by 
the  traditions  of  men,  hath  been  in  the  wildernefs  twelve 
hundred  and  fixty  years,  during  which  time  wc  are  not  to 
expeft  that  the  hiftory  of  Antichrift  will  give  us  much 
corredl  information  refpe<5^ing  her.  Nor  can  we  depend 
upon  their  accounts  being  either  friendly  or  juft.  Befides, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  reformation  under  Luther  and 
Calvin,  the  church  left  her  wildernefs  ftation,  and  arofe  at 

*  Cent.  i4.  fed.  3.  part  %.  chap-  3. 


T'^JDO  DifcoiirfeSi  ^c.  73 

from  the  dead.,  and  appeared,  in  many  places,  almojl  at  the  fame 
point  vf  time.  And  during  the  reformalion,  God  (hewed  to 
both  Luther  and  Calvin,  as  you  may  ice  by  their  writings, 
what  was  the  true  goipel  baptiim  ;  but  neither  tliey  nor 
their  followers  would  be  faithful  in  the  pradVicc  of  it :  but 
the  church  of  Chrift  hath  both  known  and  oblervcd  it,  and 
will  ftill  do  thus. 

The  public  ought  to  be  apprized,  that  Mr.  Worcefter, 
from  beginning  to  end  of  his  Sermons,  has  been  pleading 
the  caufe,  and  for  the  church  and  ordinance,  of  Antichrift ; 
then  will  they  not  be  greatly  furpiifed,  to  hear  him  com- 
bine fprinkling  and  many  other  things,  which  he  and  his 
brethren  have  pradifed,  and  then  fay,  '  The  man  who  could 
believe  it  (that  is,  that  thefe  things  are,  taken  together,  ail 
erroneous,  and  the  fooner  demolifhed  the  better)  would 
find  but  very  little  difficulty  in  believing,  that  the  Bible  is 
a  cunningly  devifed  fable,  &c.'  And,  fays  he,  page  6y, 
'  The  fair  and  invincible  conclufion  then  is,  that  fprinkling 
or  affufion,  the  mode  of  baptifm  praftifed  in  thefe  churches, 
is  fcriptuial  and  valid.' 

Mr.  Worceller  has  taken  the  fame  courfe  of  argumenta- 
tion  to  fupport  the  validity  of  fprinkling  or  affufion,  which 
the  mother  of  harlots  has  employed  to  prove  ail  her  filthy 
abominations  to  be  i'criptural  and  valid  ;  and  her  conclufion 
is  equally  ftrong,  fcriptural,  and  valid  with  his.  Yes,  and 
the  Bible  too  muft  be  confidered  as  a  cunningly  devifed 
fable,  if  his  antifcriptural  and  papiftical  notion  of  fprinkling 
bf-  not  granted,  as  being  both  fcriptural  and  valid. 

Now  follows  another  of  his  confequences.  ♦  Accord- 
ingly (fays  he)  there  is  nothing  in  the  fcriptures  againlf  it, 
(fprinkling  for  baptifm)  but  much,  did  time  permit,  in 
favour  of  it '  What  a  pity  he  had  not  taken  a  little  time, 
to  have  mentioned  at  leail:  one  palfage  in  favour  of  fprink- 
ling ?  Till  he  does,  he  will  be  conlidered  as  having  done 
the  work  of  the  Lord  deceitfully. 

We  have  already  feen,  that  ftubbnrn  t^icls,  recorded  by 
hlftorians,  both  ancient  and  modern,  are  to  Mr  Worcefter 
as  rotten  wood.  He  runs  directly  through  chem,  and  af- 
ferts  juit  the  contrary,  without  giving  a  Ihow  of  reafon  why 
he  does  ib.  lie  has  alfo  begun  to  treat  the  Bible  in  the 
fame  manner.  But  his  boldnefs  hitherto  is  quite  outdone, 
by  his  daring  and  presumptuous  affertirns  in  the  two  para- 
graphs which  next  follow.  Thefe  two  I  ftiali  tranfcribe 
entire,  that  they  may  ftand  as  perpetual  monuments  of  bis 
too  great  boldnefs.     S^vi  he. 


74^  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejler^s 

*  JVe  have  no  evidence  in  the  Jcripturety  that  in  the  days  of 
Chrijl  and  his  apofilej,  any  psrfon  luas  baptized  by  dippings  or 
immerjion.^ 

'  yifter  all  the  laborious  and  ojlentatious  cr'iticijm  vpon  the 
Greek  word  baptizo,  it  Jlill  remains  a  faii,  luell  knoiun  to  all 
tuho  are  verjed  in  the  Greek  language,  that  the  uje  of  that  ipord 
determines  nothing,  in  refp:El  to  the  particular  mode  in  nuhich 
•water  is  to  be  applied  in  baptifm.  It  is,  in  a  variety  of  inflances, 
in  the  Greek  fcriptures,  and  in  other  Greek  ivriiings,  ufcd  to 
Jtgnify  a  wafhing  cr  cleanfing,  'which  nvas  performed  by  fprink- 
Jing  or  pouring  ;  and  may  as  properly  fgnify  fprinkUng  or  pour- 
ing, as  plunging  or  dipping. ' 

Upon  thefe  words  of  Mr.  Worcefter's,  I  (hall  jull  make 
the  following  obfervations. 

1.  Had  Mr.  Worcefter  been  ignorant  of  the  Greek,  his 
ignorance  might  have  plead  for  him,  tha^.  his  fault  was  but 
the  fn  of  prefumptive  ignorance, 

2.  Mr.  Worcefter  having  given  us  no  inftance,  from  any 
writings,  either  facred  or  profane,  in  which  the  word  laptizo 
is  ufed  in  the  fenfe  in  which  he  tells  us  it  is,  in  a  variety  of 
inflances,  in  the  Greek  fcriptures,  and  in  other  Greek  writ- 
ings, he  is  therefore  not  entitled  to  the  belief  of  any  peifon. 

3.  Mr.  Worcefter  does  not  appear  to  believe  himfelf ; 
for  in  his  note,  on  the  next  page,  he  endeavours  to  parry 
the  charge  of  prefumption  and  falfehood,  which  he  proba- 
bly expeded  would  be  made  out  againft  him,  and  fays, 

•  It  is  important  to  be  remembered,  that  when  words  are  ufe4 
in  reference  to  divine  inflitutions,  and  to  fpiritual  things,  they 
have  an  appropriate  meaning,  which  can  never  be  deter- 
mined from  the  meaning  v/hich  they  have  in  common  ufe.* 
A  perfon  who  v.'ould  believe  this  papiftical  turn  and  newly 
vamped  deception  of  Mr.  Worcefter's,  deferves  to  be  igno- 
rant. Let  the  common  people  but  believe  him  in  this,  and 
he  can  make  them  Papifts  at  once. 

To  give  his  obfervation  a  fhow  of  reafon,  he  tells  us,  that 

•  deipron  figniiies  a  feaft  or  common  meal,  and  yet  we  think 
it  fufficient  to  take  a  fmall  piece  of  bread  and  a  very  little 
wine.'  But  do  not  the  evangelifts  Mark  and  Luke  fully 
explain  this  matter,  and  tell  us,  that  what  is  called  the 
hord's  fupper  was  at  moft  but  a  fmall  part  of  the  fupper 
which  they  ate  at  the  time?  Can  Mr.  Worcefter  fhow  any 
exception,  with  refpeA  to  b:iptifm,  aaJ  make  it  appear  that 
the  word  is  ufed  in  a  diminative  fenfe  ?  then  would  his 
obfervation  not  be  fo  in  the  face  of  fciipture  and  common 
fenfe,  as  it  now  is.     But  evea.then,  it  would  be  nothing  XA 


Two  Difcourfes^  Is'c.  y$ 

his  purpofe ;  for  it  would  make  no  more  than  this — that 
a  partial  immerfion,  or  very  imall  part  immerfed,  would  be 
baptifm.  Befides,  if  we  can  know  nothing  of  the  orJinances, 
or  oi  di'vlne  things,  by  the  ule  of  words  in  their  commonly 
teceived  fenfe,  then  may  the  common  people  be  deceived 
jull  when  and  luhere  and  fo  much  as  their  defigning  priefts 
Ihall  choofe.  If  Mr.  Worceiier  think  to  tread  thus  upon 
the  necks  of  his  own  people,  I  pray  the  merciful  Lord  to 
deliver  others  from  fuch  receptions. 

4.  Mr.  Worceiier  cannot  produce  a  paffage,  from  Gen- 
efis  to  Revelation,  in  which  bapt'izo  is  ufed  lor  fprinkling. 
If  he  will  do  it,  I  agree  to  make  conceflions,  before  faints 
and  finners,  as  yublickly  as  he  Ihall  prefcribe.  1  do  not 
fay,  I  will  make  conceffions,  if  he  will  ailert  that  it  is  thus 
uied,  but  if  he  will  (how  it  to  be  thus :  and  till  he  dees,  he 
rs,  in  my  judgment,  worthy  to  lie  under  the  imputation  of 
having  defignedly  or  arroganily  impofed  upon  all  the  un- 
learned in  his  own  fociety,  and  iu  every  other,  and  upon 
the  public  generally. 

5.  Mr.  WorceiW  tells  us,  that  haptl%o,  or  to  baptize, 
'  may  as  properly  lignify  fprinkling  or  pouring,  as  plunging 
or  dipping  ;'  and  yet  he  adds,  *  It  is  important  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  when  words  are  ufed  in  reference  to  divine  injii- 
tutions,  and  to  jpiritual  things,  they  have  an  appropriate  me^AXi'- 
ing,  which  can  never  l>e  determined  from  the  meaning 
which  they  have  in  their  common  ufe'  Here,  according 
to  Mr.  Worcefter,  the  word  Icptizo  means  any  thing  which 
either  he  or  his  opponents  choofe,  and  from  its  meaning 
nothing  can  be  determined  by  either.  This  very  exadiy 
comports  with  what  feme  of  the  blind  leaders  are  bold 
enough  to  fay.  That  common  people  can  never  knotu  for  them- 
felves  what  baptifm  is,  but  mujl  beliive  it  to  be  luhat  their  mm- 
ijlers  tell  them. 

Nor  has  he  given  the  public  any  better  argument  than 
this,  to  prove  that  the  human  invention  of  fprinkling  is  the 
divine  inllitution  of  baptifm.  His  argument  is  this — *  The 
Paedobaptift,  or,  more  ftridly  fpeaking,  the  Paedorantift 
denomination,  is  the  vifible  church  of  Chrift.  The  vifible 
church  of  Chrift  hath  been  eifentially  corred  in  her  notions 
of  the  gofpel  baptifm,  and  Jhe  hath-  held  fprinkling  to  be 
fcriptural  and  valid  baptiim  ;  therefore  fprinkling  is  the 
true  gofpel  baptifm.'  Juft  fo  his  holinefs  the  pope  argues— 
"  The  holy  catholic  church  of  Rome  is  the  true  vifible 
gofpel  church.  The  true  vifible  gofpel  church  hath  ever 
had  juft  notions  of  the  facrarcent  of  the  fupper ;  ^nd  Jbe 


*]^  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier's 

hath  for  many  hundred  yekrs  believed,  that  the  bread  and 
wine,  after  the  ctmiecralion  of  the  priell,  are  changed  into 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Chrift  :  therefore  the  dodtrine 
of  tranfubftantiation  is  fcriptural  and  valid.  So  are,  for 
the  fame  reaions,  the  do6trines  of  purgatory,  extreme  unc- 
tion, praying  to  the  virgin  Mary  and  to  images,  counting 
of  beads,  and  all  the  other  fripperies  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  fcriptural  and  valid."  Thus  we  fee  that  Mr.  Wor- 
celler's  argument  and  the  pope's  are  juft  the  fame,  and 
ufed  to  eftablifh  the  fame  point — tl)at  man's  inventions  are 
God's  inftitutions. 

Mr.  Worceller  denies  that  the  pope's  church  is  the  vifible 
church  ot  Chrift,  and  fo  the  pope's  argument  is  fpoiled. 
We  equiiUy  deny,  that  Mr.  Worceller's  unbaptized  church 
is  the  vihble  church  oi  Chrift,  his  argument  therefore  fells 
to  the  ground  equally  as  did  the  pope's. 

In  pages  69,  70,  Mr.  Worcefter  has  a  note,"  which 
deferves  attention.  His  words  are,  '  It  has  been  a  com- 
mon thing  with  the  AntipaEdobajitiRs,  to  fpeak  very  dif- 
refpedfully  of  learning  and  learned  njen ;  but  of  late,  one 
can  hardly  meet  with  an  Antijiaedobaptift,  who  is  not 
prepared  to  talk  fo  fluently  and  fo  learnedly  of  the  meaning 
of  Greek  and  Latin  words,  as  almoft  to  amaze  one.  Even 
the  author  of  Seven  Sermons,  on  the  mode  and  fubjefts  of 
baptifm,  "  defnes  to  thank  God  that  he  knows  the  Greek 
as  well  as  any  man  ;"  and  has  two  or  three  fermons  almoft 
wholly  upon  th*  meaning  of  a  few  Greek  and  Latin  words. 
On  this  fubje<5t,  however,  though  from  his  manner  one 
might  be  led  to  fuppofe  it  had  nevtr  before  been  attended 
to,  he  has  nothing  materially  new  :  nothing  but  what  was 
furniftied  to  his  hands  by  Ur.  ^ill,  and  other  Anabaptift 
writers ;  and  nothing  but  v.hat  has  been  repeatedly  and 
unanfwerably  anfwered.  He  aiferts  much,  but  proves  very 
little  ;  and  yet,  with  an  authoiitive  air,  but  little  becoming 
a  Chriftian  minifter,  he  requires  us  all  to  fubmit  to  his 
aflertions,  on  pain  of  beii.g  placed  at  the  ban  of  the  kingdom 
of  Chrift!' 

Upon  this  part  of  his  note  (and  more  of  it  will  be  pro- 
duced foon)  the  following  remarks  may  merit  feme  at- 
tention. 

I.  If  learning  have  been  generally  mifufed  by  learned 
nen,  as  it  has  by  Mr.  Worcefter,  to  mifreprefent  the  char- 
ters and  fentiments  of  the  .Antipsedobaptifts,  it  is  not  to 
•e  wondered  at,  if  they  have  ipoken  difreipecftfuHy  of  both. 


Two  Difcourfes,  ^c*  27 

2.  As  to  the  contemptuous  manner  in  which  he  fpeaks 
of  me,  it  is  but  a  fmall  thing,  as  it  refpecls  me  perfonally  ; 
but  as  to  his  merit  or  demerit,  in  publifhing  an  hearfay 
expreffion,  intentionally  to  my  difadvantage,  the  public 
will  judge.  Notwithftanding  his  affertion  and  re-ajfert'totiy 
that  1  have  made  the  expreflion  fomeiuhere.,  and  before 
fome  perfons,  whom  Solomon  would  call  tale-bearers,  I 
ftill  confider  it  a  flander,  and  the  accufation  as  falfe  as  the 
manner  of  his  publifhing  it  was  illiberal.  Had  I  have 
made  the  expreffion,  would  any  man,  had  he  a  good  caufe 
to  defend,  have  employed  fuch  kind  of  defence  ?  No  man, 
who  fuitably  regards  his  own  reputation,  will,  in  a  religious 
controverfy,  feek  ^ejupport  of  his  caufe  by  leflening,  in  any 
uncivil  method,  the  charader  of  his  opponent.  Shoidd  I 
lower  the  charader  of  Mr.  Worcefter,  it  fliall  be  becaufe  I 
am  compelled  to  it,  by  fetting  in  plain  view  how  he  has 
expofed  himfelf.  I  will  not  mention  what  I  know  of  the 
man,  nor  will  I  utter  what  fame  hath  reported  ;  my  bufi- 
nefs  with  him,  before  the  public,  is  upon  what  he  hath 
committed  to.the-infpeclion  of  the  whole. 

What  advantage  he  could  propofe  to  himfelf,  or  to  his 
denomination,  by  telling  the  public,  that  my  Sermons  con- 
tained nothing  materially  new,  and  that  what  I  had  faid 
was  furnifhed  to  my  hand  by  Dr.  Gill  and  others,  is  diffi- 
cult to  afcertain,  unlefs  it  were  to  make  me  appear  as  fmall 
as  he  could,  that  my  opponents  might  confider  their  tafk 
to  be  eafy,  and  the  produ^ftions  of  my  pen  to  be  fcarce 
worth  reading.  But  whether  my  Sermons  be  great  or 
fmall,  whether  they  contain  things  iietv  or  old,  whether  the 
fubjecl  matter  of  them  vv-ere  furnifhed  to  my  hand  by  Dr. 
Gill  (a  page  of  whofe  writings  I  had  then  never  {Qen  upon 
the  fubjed)  or  by  any  other  perfon,  is  not  the  point.  The 
queftion  of  importance  is.  Do  they  contain  ftubborn  fa<5ts, 
fo  handled  by  common  fenfc  as  to  expofe  the  Pasdobaptifl 
errors,  by  the  exhibition  of  plain  truth  ? 

3.  What  he  tells  the  public,  of  my  requiring  perfons  to 
believe  what  my  Sermons  contain,  upon  pain  of  being 
placed  at  the  ban  (that  is,  the  curfe,  or  execration)  of  the 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  is  equally  unfounded  with  his  other 
afTertions. 

We  will  now  hear  fome  more  of  his  note.  Says  he, 
*  The  word  baptizo,  as  conceded  on  all  hands,  fignifies  to 
ivojh.''  Here  he  miflakes  again.  It  is  not,  by  any  means, 
conceded,  that  bapii%o  fignifies  to  ivajhy  in  the  commqjx 

G 


7^  Letters  on  Rev.  5.  Worcejler's 

acceptatian  of  that  word.     It  fignifies  to  wafh  in  a  fpecific 
fenfe  ;  to  walli  by  immerfion,  dipping,  or  putting  the  thing 
in  water :   this  is  the  only  fenfe  in  which  we  concede  that  . 
baptizo  fignifies  to  wafh.     Mr.  Worcefter  fubjoins,  <  If  it  be 
faid,   that  fprinkhng  or  afFufion  is  not  walhing ;   it  may  i 
alfo,  with  equal  pertinency,   be  faid,   that   dipping  is  not  I 
wafhing.'     Here  is  another  of  his  miftakes  :  for  dipping  is, 
in  the  Bible,  in  the  cafe  of  Naaman,  put  for  a  fpecific  kind 
of  wafhing  ;  in  one  inftance  it  is  called  wafhing,   and  in 
another  the  fame  thing  is  called   dipping.       But,  if  my 
recolleftion    ferves   me,    fprinkling    is  never  called  wafh- 
ing ;  never  once  fo  called,  from  Genefis  to  Revelation  : 
and  all  he  fays  about  it   is,   in   my  judgment,   merely  to   jj 
darken  counfel  by  words  without  knowledge.  -i 

Again,  fays  he,  *  If  it  be  faid,  that  dipping  is  one  mode 
in  "which  wafhing  is  performed  ;  it  may,  in  rejoinder,  be 
faid,  fo  alfo  is  fprinkling  or  afFufion  one  mode  in  which 
wafhing  is  performed  ;  and  that  too,  the  mode  in  which 
the  fcriptures  mod  commonly  reprefent  ceremonial  and 
fpiritual  wafhings.'  But  where  do  the  fcriptures  fay  any 
fuch  thing  ?  Where  do  they  fo  much  as  once  mention  that 
fprinkling  is  ceremonial  or  fpiritual  wafhing,  or  any  other 
kind  of  wafhing  ?  Mr.  Worcefler's  fide  muft,  indeed,  be 
hard  piefTcd,  when,  with  all  his  labour,  he  cannot  find  fo 
much  as  a  fentence  of  fcripture,  to  help  him  out  of  his 
increafing  difl^iculty. 

In  the  next  paragraph,  he  very  incautioufly  involves 
himfelf  in  a  double  difficulty,  from  which  he  will  not  be 
able  to  extricate  himfelf.  . 

*  It  is  important  (fays  he)  to  be  remembered,  that  when    I 
words  are  ufed  in  reference  to  divine  injlitutions,  and  to  fpir^    ' 
itual  things,  they  have  an  appropriate  meaning,  which  can 
never  be  determined  from  the  meaning  which  they  have   in 
their  common  ufe.^     Here  two  things  are  highly  noticeable. 

I.  He  implicitly  grants,  with  relation  to  baptizOf  what 
we  afHrm  to  be  true,  that  the  common  ufe,  the  plain  fenfe, 
of  it,  is  to  immerfe ;  otherwife,  it  would  not  be  important 
to  his  purpofe  for  us  to  remember,  '  that  when  words  are 
iifed  in  reference  to  divine  inftitutions,  they  have  an  appro- 
piHc.te  meaning,  which  can  never  be  determined  from  the 
meaning  which  they  have  in  their  common  nfe.'  For  if  bap- 
tizo,  in  its  common  ufe,  ever  mean  to  fprinkle  or  afFufe, 
which  Mr.  Worcefter  tells  us,  in  the  preceding  page,  it  may 
as  properly  fignify,  as  to  plunge  or  d^p,  then,  if  to  fprinkle     , 


Two  DifcGnrfcs^  l^c.  79 

or  to  pour  be  baptlfm,  the  word  has  no  appropriate 
meaning  tvhen  ufed  in  reference  to  that  divine  inftitution. 
But,  fays  he,  '  It  is  important  to  remember,  that  it  has  an 
appropriate  meaning  when  ufed  in  reference  to  a  divine 
inltitution  ;'  therefore,  in  its  common  ufe  it  can  have  no 
fuch  meaning  as  to  fprinkle  or  pour. 

2.  For  more  than  feventeen  hundred  years,  both  the 
learned  and  the  unlearned  have,  generally,  been  enveloped 
in  neceffary  ignorance,  as  to  what  the  divine  inllitution  of 
baptifm  is  ;  for  few,  if  any,  ever  knew,  till  Mr.  Worcefter 
gave  the  important  informaiion,  that  they  were  not  to  under- 
ftand  baptizo,  when  ufed  with  reference  to  baptilm,  in  tlie 
fame  fenfe  in  which  it  was  commonly  ufed.  The  Lord 
hath  no  where  given  us  this  important  information  ;  and 
had  it  not  been  for  Mr.  Worcefter,  we  had  ftill  gone  on  in 
our  native  and  necefl'ary  ignorance.  What  will  Chriftians 
think  and  fay  of  this  matter  I  Reader,  I  pray  thee  confider 
wifely  of  this.  Hath  the  wife,  the  compaffionate  Lord 
Jefus  commanded  all  who  love  him  to  be  baptized,  and 
in  the  command,  and  in  the  circumftances  of  the  command, 
hath  given  them  no  information,  but  what  he  intended  they 
fhould  obferve,  what  the  common  fenfe  of  the  word  im- 
ported, while,  at  the  flime  time,  he  had  an  appropriate 
fecret  meaning  to  it  ?  Does  Mr.  Worcefter  think  to  change 
the  laws  of  Chrift,  at  this  late  period  of  the  world  ?  Will 
Chriftians  admit  fuch  a  grofs  impofiiion,  not  merely  upon 
the  Bible  and  upon  common  fenfe,  but  uport  the  Lord  of 
both  ?  Shall  the  world  be  always  impofed  upon  by  fuch 
bare-faced  wickednefs  ?  He  virtually  accufes  the  Chriftian 
Lawgiver  with  duplicity  and  deception.  The  Lord  hath 
commanded  a  divine  inftitution,  yet  in  the  command  hath 
ufed  words  in  an  appropriate  fenfe,  and  yet  hath  given  no 
intimation  of  their  being  thus  ufed  ;  and  thus  he  hath  im- 
pofed upon  his  poor  followers,  or  elfe  Mr.  Woicefter  hath 
manifeftly  accufed,  falfely,  the  Holy  One  of  Ifrael.  Will 
Mr.  Worcefter  blufli  and  condemn  himfelf,  for  thus  abufing 
the  Chrift  of  God  ?  or  will  he  ftill  juftify  himfelf,  and  fay, 
that  the  Son  of  God,  who  taught  man's  tongue  to  fpeak, 
and  gave  underftanding  to  the  funs  of  men,  hath,  in  the 
charatfter  of  Chriftian  Lawgiver,  ufed  words  in  fuch  an 
appropriate  fenfe,  that  both  the  learned  and  the  rude,  the 
faint  and  the  fmner,  were  all  of  them  not  only  equally  liable 
to  miftake  him,  but  under  a  natural  neceffity  to  do  fo  ?  For 
Jefus  Chrift  hath  not,  in  any  part  of  his  law  or  gofpel,  told 


8©  Letters  on  Rev,  S.  Worcejier's 

wi  what  this  appropriate  fenfe  is,  in  which  he  would  have 
us  underftand  the  word  baptizo,  or  to  baptize.  Nor  has  he 
i'o  revealed  this  to  Mr.  Worcefter,  that  he  is  able  to  inform 
us  with  certainty  what  it  is  ;  at  moft,  he  can,  or  does,  tell 
us  nothing  more  than  this — It  is  a  very  fmall  or  little  im- 
merfion. 

May  the  long-fufFering  Redeemer  kindly  rebuke  and 
gracioufly  forgive  the  prefumption  of  the  man,  and  deliver 
his  ov,ni  people  from  luch  grofs  impofitions  ! 

I  will  prefent  the  public  with  but  one  more  quotation 
from  the  note  iinder  confideration,  and  it  is  this,  '  Should 
any  zealous  Chriftians  (fays  he)  think  it  neceffary  to  make 
literally  a  feaft,  or  a  full  meal,  at  the  Lord's  table;  they 
might,  with  as  much  propriety,  and  as  much  of  the  Chrit 
tian  fpirit,  feparate  themfelves  from  the  communion  of  thofe 
who  only  partake  of  a  little  bread  and  wine,  and  charge 
them  with  refufmg  to  keep  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord  ;  as 
thofe,  who  tliink  it  neceffary  to  be  plunged  all  over  in " 
water,  can  feparate  themfelves  from  the  communion  of 
thofe  who  have  only  been  baptized  by  fprinkling,  and 
charge  them  with  not  keeping  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord.* 

This  is  another  cf  his  mifreprefentations  :  for, 

1.  The  partaking  of  a  little  bread  and  wine,  is  the  plain, 
literal  import  of  the  ordinance,  or  of  the  elements  and  cele- 
bration of  it ;  as  is  manifeft  in  the  very  inftitution  of  it. 
It  was  while  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  or  after  they 
had  for  a  while  been  eating  and  drinking,  our  Lord  took 
bread  and  wine,  and  gave  them  to  his  difciples,  as  a  com- 
memorative ordinance.     But, 

2.  It  is  not  thus  in  the  ordinance  of  baptifm.  There  is 
no  fuch  intimation,  that  a  very  fmall  or  partial  immerfion 
is,  was,  or  ever  (liall  be,  gofpel  baptifm.  And  as  for 
fprinkling,  man's  fubftitute  for  gofpel  baptifm,  there  is 
nothing  in  it  which  has  any  fimilarity  to  the  firft  gofpel 
ordinance.  There  is,  therefore,  no  likenefs  in  the  two 
<;afes  which  he  has  put :  one  is  according  to  the  command- 
ment and  pattern  given,  and  the  other  is  quite  a  different 
thing.  God's  people  will  one  day  fee  how  their  leaders 
caufe  them  to  err. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  am,  for  defending  the  truth,  the 
reproach  of  many. 


T'WQ  DifcourfcSj  i^c.  8 1 

We  appeal  to  the  Bible,  to  Jluhborn  fa6ls,  and  tg 
conumti  fenfe. 

LETTER      IX. 

MEN,   BRETHREN,  AND   FATHERS, 

jL  OU  are,  no  doubt,  either  tired  of  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter's  miftakes  and  mifreprefentations,  or  of  my  correc- 
tions of  his  departures  from  fcripture  truth,  from  hiftoric 
fads,  and  from  common  fenfe.  But,  as  he  has  impofed 
upon  your  credulity,  and  infulted  your  want  of  claffic 
knowledge  and  hiftoric  information,  you  will  readily  bear 
with  me  a  little,  whilft  I  endeavour  to  remove  the  blinds 
and  uncover  the  deceptions  which  have  kept  you  from 
feeing  the  order  and  ordinances  of  the  church  of  the  Son 
of  God. 

We  fliall,  for  a  few  minutes,  attend  upon  Mr.  Worcefler, 
where  he  is  profeifedly  giving  us  the  fcripture  account  of 
gofpel  baptifm. 

In  page  70,  he  introduces  the  fubjeifi:  thus :  '  In  two  or 
three  inltances  we  read,  (fays  he)  indeed,  of  their  going 
down  into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water  ;  but 
the  original  particles,  rendered  in  thefe  inftances,  into  and 
out  oft  are  as  properly,  and  much  more  commonly,  rendered 
fmiply  to  ziVid  from.'  But,  I  reply,  they  are  never  rendered 
to  and  from,  wlien  they  refer  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  ; 
nor  could  they  be  properly  ever  thus  rendered.  Accord- 
ingly, the  tranflators  of  the  Bible  have  never,  in  a  fingle 
inftance,  adopted  Mr.  Worcefter's  tranflation  of  them,  when 
the  ordinance  was  in  queflion.  Nor-could  they  with  pro- 
priety have  ever  thus  rendered  them  ;  which  they  would 
have  done,  if  it  had  been  poflible,  confiftent  with  their 
folemn  engagement  to  fidelity  :  for  it  was  in  the  reign  of 
king  James,  under  whofe  patronage  they  tranflated  the 
Bible,  that  the  human  rite  of  fprinkling  obtained  public 
countenance  in  England,  as  a  common  fubftitute  for  gofpel 
baptifm.  Thefe  tranflators  could  not  have  failed  to  have 
admitted  Mr.  Worcefter's  tranflation,  had  the  connexion 
have  juftified  fuch  a  meafure  :  but  in  no  inftance  have  they 
done  thus.  They  knew  and  pradifed  better,  than  to  per- 
G  2 


Si  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier's 

vert  the  fcriptures  by  fuch  a  tranflation  ;  and  Mr.  Worcef- 
ter  ought  to  know  better,  or  fay  lefs,  for  God  will  not 
always  fuffer  his  people  to  be  thus  blindly  led. 

♦  But  (fays  he)  it  is  particularly  to  be  remembered,  that 
when  they  went  down  to  the  water,  or  into  the  water,  it  is 
not  in  a  fingle  inftance  faid  how  they  were  there  baptized, 
whether  by  dipping  or  by  fprinkling.' 

Reply,  Here  let  common  fenfe  fpeak,  and  fay,  if  the  fol- 
lowing inftances  do  not  exprefs  the  manner  how.  They 
were  all  baptized  of  him  (John)  ih  the  river  of  Jordan. 
Jefus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of 
John  IN  Jordan.  And  Jlra'tghtway  coming  up  out  of  the 
water,  &c.  Buried  with  Chrift  in  baptifm.  Planted  in  bap- 
tifm.  Burled  by  baptifm.  Raifed  with  Chrift  in  baptifm. 
Having  our  lodies  nvojlied  with  pure  water,  &c.*  Is  it  to 
be  p^articularly  remembered,  that  not  in  a  fmgle  inftance, 
when  they  went  down  to  the  water,  or  into  tlie  water,  ♦  it 
is  not  faid  honv  they  were  there  baptized,  whether  by  dip- 
ping or  by  fprinkling  ?'  It  ought,  indeed,  to  be  particularly 
known,  and  then  lemembeied,  that  not  in  a  fingle  inftance, 
in  all  the  Bible,  is  fprinkling  fo  much  as  mentioned  or  inti- 
mated to  be  the  matter  or  mode  of  gofpel  baptifm.  In 
every  Tingle  inftance,  where  any  diredl;  or  circumftantial 
information  is  given  of  the  manner  how,  in  baptifm,  it 
implies  immerl^cn,  and  nothing  fhort  of  it.  Befides,  the 
very  word  itfelf,  in  every  inftance,  tells  us,  in  its  plain, 
Itleral,  and  common  fenfe,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  implicitly 
allows,  that  the  manner  honv^  in  baptifm,  was  immerjion. 

Mr.  Worcefter  tells  us,  in  his  note,  page  71,  that  '  Chrift's 
baptifm  was  defigned  regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his 
prieftly  office,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes.'  Where  did 
Mr.  Worcefter  obtain  this  information  ?  Not  in  the  Bible, 
for  that  conrradids  it :  for,  fays  the  apoftle  to  the  Hebrews, 
chap.  vii.  Chrift  "  ftiould  not  be  called  after  the  order  of 
Aaron,  For  the  ^riejibood  being  changed,  there  is  mude  of 
necejfity  a  change  of  the  la-w. — Our  Lord  fprang  out  of  Juda  ; 
of  which  tribe  Mofes  fpake  nothing  concerning  priefthood." 
Befides,  fays  the  apoftle,  our  Lord  "  is  made  [prieftj  not 
lifter  the  la'iv^  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after  the  power 
of  an  endlefs  life.  For  he  teftifieth.  Thou  art  a  prieft  for- 
ever, after  the  order  of  Mekhifeda."  But  in  contradiction 
to  the  word  of  God,  Mr.  Worcefter,  that  he  might  deprive 

*  M^tt.  jii.  6.  Mart  i  5,  9,  la.  Rom.  vi  4;  J.   Col  ii  1%,  Htb.  t  2». 


Two  Difcourfes,  b'f.  83 

Chriftians  of  the  example  of  their  Lord  in  baptifm,  would, 
■without  a  word  of  fcripture  authority,  and  contrary  from 
every  commandment  in  the  Mofaic  latv  oi priejihood^  fiitroduce 
Chrift  into  his  prieftly  office  according  to  the  law  of  Moi.es. 
Moles  knew  nothing  about  this  notion  of  Mr.  WorceRer's ; 
fior  woultl  he  or  his  brelhren  ever  have  invented  it,  had 
they  not  found  difficulty  ■  in  oppofing  the  practice  of  the 
baptized  church. 

We  will  now  hear  his  conclufion,  as  to  the  fcripture 
account  of  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  and  his  evidence,  as  he 
hath  fummed  it  up,  pages  72,  73.  '  Is  it  not  plain  (fay& 
he)  that  fprinkling  is  a  mode  much  more  properly  fignifi- 
cant  than  dipping  ?  In  reference  to  the  application  of  the 
blood  of  Chrift,  we  never  read  of  dipping  or  immerfing, 
but  conftantly  of  fprinklmg  or  pouring.'  Not  fo  :  for,  Rev. 
i.  5.  we  read  of  Jefus  Chrift,  "  who  loved  us,  and  ivajhed 
us  from  our  fms  in  his  own  blood.^'  But  he  adds  feveral 
pafTages  of  fcripture,  which  are  nothing  to  his  purpofe,  for 
they  fay  nothing  of  baptifm  :  however,  the  reader  Ihall 
have  fet  before  him  the  pafTages  mentiom^-l.  They  are 
thefe : — "  Ye  are  come  to  the  blood  of  fprmkling.  And 
fprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Chrift.  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flclh.  I  will  fprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  Ihall  be  clean.  So  fhalLhe  fprinkle  many  nations.'* 
'Such  (fays  he)  are  the  uniform  reprefentations  of  fcrip- 
ture.' What  does  he  here  intend  ?  If  his  meaning  be,  what 
his  readers  would  naturally  underftand,  by  his  ftatement  of 
the  matter,  that  '  fuch  are  the  uniform  reprefentations  of 
,  fcripture,'  when  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  is  intended  or 
fpoken  of,  then  there  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  what  he 
fays,  but  juft  the  reverfe  is  true ;  tor  there  is  not  one  fuch 
reprefentation  in  all  the  Bible,  when  the  gofpel  ordinance 
of  baptifm  is  mentioned.  I  will  not  fliy  that  Mr.  Worcefter 
meant  to  deceive  and  impofe  upon  the  public,  but  this  I 
will  fay.  Had  this  been  his  intention,  his  writings  could 
not-liave  appeared  more  like  it. 

His  next  ftep  is,  to  reafon  with  his  people  upon  propriety 
£ind  decency,  fuppofed  order  and  foJemnity,  the  very  mother  of 
this  papijiieal  abomination,  of  ihis  fprinkling  fithjlitute  for  gofpel 
baptifm.  Mr.  W^orcefter  having  laboured,  and  laboured  in 
•vain,  to  find  one  word  of  God,  which  mentions  fprinkling 
for  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  he  would  now  perfuade  his 
people  and  the  public  to  give  their  affent  to  it  upon  the 
fcore  of  propriety  and  decency^  or  upon  account  oi  urder  and 


84  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worce^cr's 

fokmr.'tty.  What  crooked  paths  are  trodden  by  the  bhnd 
leaders  of  the  bhnd  !  Once  was  I,  as  to  infant  baptifm,  in 
this  fiimoicrooked  path  ;  but,  by  the  grace  of  God,  1  am 
ivhdt  I  am. 

Mr.  Worcefter,  in  his  note,  page  73,  tells  uf,  'The  quef- 
tion  properly  between  us  is  not  this,  whether  any  were 
baptized,  in  the  days  of  Chrill  and  his  apoftlcs,  by  immer- 
fion  or  dipping  ;  but  it  is  precifely  this,  whether  imrnerficn 
or  dipping  be  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptifm.'  He  has 
defined  the  queftion  well,  and  for  a  full  anfwer,  fee  my 
Letters  to  Mr.  Auftin.  However,  I  will  give  a  fhort  anfwer 
here,  and  an  anfwer  too,  which  neither  Mr.  Worcefter  nor 
his  brethren  have  been  or  ever  will  be  able  to  refute.  The 
anfwer  is  this, — The  Bible  mode  of  baptifm  is  the  only 
valid  mode.  The  Bible  mode,  that  v>'hich  Chrift  com- 
manded, and  that  which  the  apoftles  pradifed,  was  immer- 
fion,  and  immerfion  only,  as  is  evident  from  this  plain 
reafon — Immtrfion  is  the  plain,  literal,  and  common  fenfe 
of  the  command,  and  the  plain,  literal,  ar.d  common  fenfe 
of  the  hiftory  given  of  the  apoftles'  praflice  is  alfo  immer- 
fion  ;  and  there  is  no  diiferent  or  oppofite  fenfe  to  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word,  or  to  the  pradice  of  the  apoftles. 
But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  *  if  in  the  moft  extreme  cafes,  fuch 
as  thofe  of  sickness  and  imprifonment,  baptifm  might  be  ad- 
miniftered  by  fprinkling  or  affufion,  then  immerfion  is  not 
eifential  to  the  ordinance.'  I  anfwer.  Certainly,  if  there 
be  any  pofiible  cafe,  in  which  gofpel  baptifm  may  be  ad- 
miniftered  in  any  way  otherwife  than  by  immerfion,  then 
immerfion  is  not  effential  to  the  ordinance  :  but  this  is  the 
very  thing  to  be  proved.  The  Bible,  by  neither  precept, 
example,  nor  implication,  gives  any  liberty  for  any  fuch 
baptifm.  '1  he  Bible  knows  nothing  of  fick-bed  baptifm, 
nor  of  impiifoned  baptifm,  nor  of  baptifm  by  fprinkling  or 
affufion. 

After  Mr.  Worcefter  had  faid  very  many  things,  with 
very  little  candour,  and  with  lefs  regard  to  veracity  and 
fads,  he  endeavours,  page  74,  to  load  the  Anabaptifts,  as 
he  terms  them,  with  reproach,  and  to  cover  them  with 
contempt,  by  charging  to  their  account  feveral  fuperfti- 
tious  pradices  which  took  place  more  than  a  thou/and  years 
before  he  will  allow  them  even  an  exiftence.  Says  he, 
page  66,  'The  Anabaptifts,  my 'brethren,  are  a  fed  of 
modern  date  ;  they  had  their  origin  fome  time  after  the 
reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin.'     But  now,  page 


Two  Difcourfes^  ^c.  85 

74,  to  calumniate  the  poor  Anabaptifts,  he  charges  to  their 
reproach  what  he  fays  was  praftifed  by  ancient  Chriftians. 
He  tells  us,  *  When  they  were  baptized  by  immerfion,  they 
were  all  baptized  naked,  they  were  immerfed  three  times, 
they  were  figned  with  the  crofs,  and  on  coming  out  of  the 
water  they  were  clothed  in  white  lobes,  &c.  Let  it  not  be 
faid  (fays  he)  that  this  was  the  manner  of  popifli  immer- 
fions  ;  it  was  the  manner  of  the  earlieft  immerfions  of 
which  we  have  any  account.' 

Now  this  whole  matter,  or  the  fubftance  of  it,  as  he  has 
ftated  it,  is  falfe,  from  beginning  to  end  of  it.*  But  the^ 
Angularity  of  it  is,  that  he  fliould  lay  thefe  fuperftitious 
pradices  to  the  reproach  of  the  Anabaptifts,  who  had  not 
(if  Mr.  Worcefter  told  the  truth  to  his  brethren)  any  exift- 
ence  till  more  than  a  thoufand  years  after  the  introdudion 
of  thefe  fuperfticions.  Befides,  what  renders  it  ftill  more 
fmgular  is,  the  Anabaptifts,  as  he  calls  them,  have  never 
pra<5lifed  or  approved  of  the  errors  with  which  he  reviles 
them  ;  but  his  own  denomination  have  for  ages,  or  in  dif- 
ferent ages,  pradifed  the  whole  of  them,  as  I  am  ready  to 
fhow  at  large,  if  he  and  his  brelhren  wifli  me  to.  It  is  to 
be  remembered,  that  my  propofal  is,  to  prove  that  the 
Pasdobaptifts  are  chargeable  with,  and  have  pradifed,  all 
the  fuperftitious  fripperies  which  Mr.  Worcefter  unright- 
eoufly  and  illiberally  lays  to  the  reproach  of  the  Anabap- 
tifts, It  is  not  enough  for  Mr.  Worcefter  to  reproach  the 
gofpel  ordinance  of  baptifm,  by  calling  it  plunging  and 
dipping  ;  and  to  give  the  baptized  church  an  ill  name, 
which  never  anfwered  to  their  public  fentiment,  any  farther 
than  this — when  any,  who  had  not  received  gofpel  believ- 
ers' baptifm,  wiftied  to  be  of  their  communion,  they  ad- 
miniftered  it  to  him.  Yes,  it  is  not  enough  for  him  to  do 
all  this,  and  to  charge  to  the  account  of  the  baptized  church 
all  the  evils  v.hich  he  can  fee  or  hear  of  them  ;  but  in 
addition,  he  muft  heap  upon  them  the  fuperftitious  of  his 
own  profelled  denomination,  which  took  place  hundreds  of 
years  befoie  there  was,  according  to  his  own  alfertions,  fo 
much  as  one  fociety  of  Baptifts,  or,  as  he  calls  them,  Ana- 
baptifts, in  the  world.  A  man  who  can  knowingly,  delib- 
erately, and  wilfully,  be  guilty  of  fuch  management,  to 
blind  his  own  people,  to  keep  truth  out  of  fight,  and  to. 

•  Sec  Booth's  Psedo.  Vol  II   p    109.     Mofiieim,  Vol.  I.  pi  iOO,  388. 
Vol  U.  cent  4.     Booth,  Vol.  I.  p.  258,  263,  a6j,  &c. 


S6  Letters  on  Rev.  S.  Worcejier^s 

rctainthe  public  mind  in  the  belief  of  fome  of  the  fuperfti- 
tions  of  popery,  is  not  deferving  of  very  high  reputation, 
among  llie  faithful,  though  defpifed,  followers  of  the  Lamb. 

Mr.  VVorcefter's  exhortation,  page  74 — 76,  to  parental 
faithfulnefs,  would  be  in  meafure  pleafing,  were  it  not  that 
it  is  founded  in  error,  and  brought  to  fupport  it.  He 
reminds  parents  of  their  duty,  *  to  bear  their  children  on 
their  hearts  at  the  throne  of  grace,  praying  with  them  and 
for  them  ;  f;iithfully  to  inftrucfl  them,  as  they  become  capa- 
ble of  receiving  inftrudion,  in  the  dodrines  and  precepts  of 
the  gofpel,'  &c.  All  this  is  good ;  and  it  is  greatly  to  le 
defiredjthatChrifHansjof  whatever  name, were  more  faithful 
in  bringing  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord.  But  even  where  he  enforces  a  gofpel  duty, 
he  does  it  from  a  confideration  of  his  erroneous  principles, 
and  not  by  gofpel  ir.jundions  or  motives.  He  tells  tlie 
parents  of  their  lapti-zed  children,  the  children  of  the  covenant f 
the  children  of  the  church,  the  covenant'  votvs  of  parents 
bclievingly  to  tritji  in  \.\\e  proniife  of  God  rejfeding  their  children^ 
SiC.  Now,  we  find  not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  gofpel, 
with  relation  to  hapti-zed  tinbelieving  children. 

In  pages  78,  79,  Mr.  Worcefter  has  feveral  things,  which 
deferve  to  be  repeated  in  the  public  hearing,  and  to  be 
noticed  by  every  perfon  concerned  in  the  prefent  contro- 
verfy.  Says  he,  '  God  forbid,  my  brethren,  that  in  refpeft 
to  any  denom.ination  or  feet  of  profeflmg  Chriftians,  we 
fhould  ever  difplay  any  thing  like  a  fpirlt  of  perfecution,  ©r 
even  uncharitablenefs.' 

We  do  not  accufe  Mr.  Worcefter  of  calling  upon  the 
fccular  po'wer,  to  wage  dired;  and  bloody  perfecution  upon 
any  feet  or  denomination  of  ChriRians  ;  but  we  appeal  to 
all  who  are  converfant  with  the  hiftory  of  perfecutions,  if 
he  have  not  manifefted  the  very  fpirit  w'hich  hath  attended 
them  ?  Has  it  not  ever  been  the  cafe,  in  all  perfecutions, 
that  the  perfecutors  have  faid  many  if  not  all  kir.ds  of 
evil,  falfcly,  againft  the  perfecuted,  and  then  proceeded  to 
other  more  violent  ftcps  ?  Mr.  WorceRer  hath  already  faid 
many  evil  l\imgs,falfely,  againft  the  Antipasdobaptifts  ;  and 
in  the  very  next  fentence  to  the  one  juft  quoted,  he  impli- 
citly charges  th<;m,  and  very  unjuftly  too,  with  feveral  great 
evils.  Says  he,  *  So  far  as  they  difcover  an  adherence  to 
the  truth,  a  regard  for  true  religion,  and  a  zeal  for  God 
according  to  knowledge,  we  will  approve  and  love  them  ; 
but  wherein  they  depart  from  the  truth,  do   'wrong  to  the 


Tvjo  Difcourfes,  ^c,  87 

cau/g  of  religion,  and  difplay  the  unhallowed  fp'trit  o£ party,  we 
will  bear,  as  we  are  enabled  and  have  occafion,  our  tefti- 
ipony  againft  them.* 

All  this  might  be  taken  in  a  good  (en^e,  but  what  he  fays 
in  the  two  next  paragraphs  fhows  in  what  fenfe  this  is  to 
be  taken.  In  the  firft  of  the  two  paragraphs  he  infinuates, 
that  we  are  not  contending  or  concerned  for  the  caufe  of 
truth,  but  only  for  the  caufe  of  a  party.  But  in  the  next 
paragraph,  he  accufes  us  roundly,  and  moft  explicitly, 
though  faifely,  of  fome  of  the  worfl:  of  herefies.  *  Merely 
(fays  he)  a  denial  of  the  external  rite  of  baptifm  to  the 
infant  feed  of  believers,  though  in  itfelf  exceedingly  repre- 
henfible,  as  it  is  a  denial  of  an  important  divine  in/liiution, 
is,  however,  but  a  fmall  part  of  the  error  of  our  Antipaedc- 
baptift  brethren.  Tl:)ey  deny  God's  everlajling  covenant  of 
fuperabounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inheritance  and 
privileges  of  his  people,  and  the  fource  of  hlejjings  to  all  the  kin- 
dreds of  the  earth.  They  deny  the  church  of  God,  which  'was 
formed  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  which  ---■^'-is  defiined  to 

rife and  become  ••• —  the  joy  of  the  univerfe.     The  grand 

provifion,  which,  in  his  infinite  ivfdom  and  grace,  "Jehovah  has 
been  pleafd  to  make,  for  the  prefervation  of  a  righteous  feed  on 
the  earth,  and  for  the  maintenance  and  promotion,  from  age  to 
age,  of  his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  this  hoflile  ivorld,  they  not  only 
deny,  but  openly  contemn.  They  deny  and  contemn  the  grace, 
tvhich  is  fo  kindly  and  fo  condefcendingly  offered,  for  the  fpir- 
itual  renovation  and  everlafling  falvation  of  the  sefd  ot  the 
church.  The  great  body  of  God's  vifible  profjfmg  people,  evert 
the  moft  enlightened  and  the  mofl  faithful,  for  hundreds  of 
years,  they  utterly  fet  afide,  as  conftituting  no  part  of  the 
true  church  of  Chrift,  but  only  a  part  of  Antichrift  — The 
Jlrong  bond  of  connexion  between  the  Old  and  New  Teflament 
fcriptures,  they,  in  a  manner,  deflroy.  The  beautiful  plan  of 
divine  tvifdom  and  grace,  exhibited  in  the  covenant,  they  ex- 
ceedingly  mar  ;  and  the  tnyjfical  body  of  Chrifl,  declared  in  his  .^ 
word  to  be  one,  they  rend  in  twain  !  *  "  '•''■ 

Thefe  accufations,  and  misftated  and  falfe  charges,  we 
confider  to  comprife  as  notorious  a  //W  againft  the  baptized       >,     -. 
church  of  Chrift,  as  was  ever  made  out  by  a  Spanifti  inqui-        \m 
fition,  againft  the  fame  kind  of  reputed  or  pretended  heretics.         \w. 
Here  we  are  acculed  of  denying  a  divine  injliiution,  of  deny-  « 

ing  God's  everlafting  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  church  of  j 

God.     We  are  accufed  of  not  only  denying,  but  of  openly  con-  | 

temning,  the  grand  provifion  which  Jehovah  hath  made,  for  i 


88  Letters  en  Rev.  S.  Worcejler's 

the  preferving  a  righteous  feed  on  the  earth  ;  and  of  denying 
and  contemning  the  grace  which,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  is 
offered  for  the  fpiritual  renovation  and  everlajltng  falvatkn  of 
the  feed  of  the  church.  We  are  accufed  of  utterly  fetting 
afide  God's  vlfible  people^  even  the  mod  enlightened  and  the 
mojl  faithful  of  them,  as  being  in  the  church  of  Antichrift  ; 
and  not  only  fo,  but  we  do,  in  a  manner,  (unlefs  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter fp«iak  falfely)  deftroy  the  connexion  between  the  Old 
and  New  Teftament  fciiptures,  exceedingly  mar  the  beau- 
tiful plan  of  divine  nulfdom  and  grace,  and  rend  In  twain  the 
myfilcal  body  of  Chrlfi.  This  is  the  fum,  though  not  all,  of 
the  charge  which  Mr.  Worcefter,  of  Salem,  hath  feen  fit  to 
lay  at  the  door  of  the  baptized  church.  Quite  fimilat  is 
it  to  that  which  the  felf-righteous  Scribes  and  Pharifees 
brought  againft  our  baptized  Head  and  Lord  ;  and  of  the 
fame  kind,  yet  worfe,  than  the  charge  which  they  brought 
againft  Paul,  when  they  judged  him  to  be  worthy  of  death, 
for  oppofing  the  very  errors  which  Mr.  Worcefter  is  labour- 
ing to  upliold,  and  for  vindicating  thofe  new-covenant 
principles  and  privileges  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  ef- 
tablifh.  But  it  happens  to  us,  as  it  happened  to  our  Lord, 
and  as  it  hath  ever  happened  to  his  faithful  followers,  they 
are  unable  to  prove  the  things  whereof  they  accufe  us. 

Their  accufations  are  equally  falfe,  and  appear  equally 
malignant,  with  thbfe,  with  which  our  baptized  brethren 
have  been  wickedly  charged  from  John  the  Baptift's  day 
to  ours.  But,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  •  God  forbid,  my  breth- 
ren, that  we  fliould  ever  difplay  any  thing  like  a  perfecut- 
ing  fpirit.'  But  let  the  reader,  for  a  moment,  afk  what 
is  a  perfecuting  fpirit  ?  Can  any  thing  be  more  like  it, 
than  2.re  falfe  and  Inflammatory  accufations  brought  againft  any 
man,  or  fet  of  men,  in  order  to  ftir  up  the  multitude  againft 
the  accufed  ?  efpecially  when  the  accufed  is  charged  with 
fpeaking  againft  God,  againft  \\\s  grace,  divine  Injlltutlon,  fa- 
cred  'Word,  and  againft  his  vlfible  people  ?  Yea,  againft  the 
beft  of  them,  againft  the  moft  enlightened  and  the  mofi  faith- 
ful of  them  ?  and  when  the  accufed  are  charged  with  mar" 
ring  the  plan  of  divine  ivlfdom,  of  rending  in  tnvaln  the  church 
of  Chrlfi,  and  of  holding  to  fuch  error  and  fuch  wrong,  as 
muft  be  exceedingly  Injurious  to  the  caufe  of  religion  and  deepJy 
wouttdlng  to  Chrift  and  the  members  of  his  body  !  Is  not 
the  very  next  ftep,  to  profcribe  thefe  heretics,  and  would 
there  be  any  thing  to  hinder  their  receiving  from  their  falfe 
zud.fel^  atcfiffrt  fuch  punUhmeot,  as  would  deter,  for  the 


TA^^i 


1^ 


'^ 


-7 


■^:^'* 


•V 


J^-^   ^."V^ 


■J<Cf 


:■-*'-* 


.*  -  ■       ■  ►-.  -» 


i'    '>    '  •t'^ 


i 


1  ■■ 


L'-  "   ■*■■      ■  '■■'  ■  .*'^;''-  S 


